The lighthouse of Mordor

[Maéglin]

Is it just me or is the effect of Sauron's piercing eye as a ray of light extremely cheesy. Baradur really resembled a lighthouse IMHO.<BR>I can stand Sauron without a physical form, but to make it so that Sauron can only 'sense' the ring when he is looking at it with a orange beam of light is just...wrong.

[Lord Melkor]

You know, the most amusing part was when the Ring is destroyed and Barad-dur is collapsing. You could see the Eye looking franticly in all directions as he was going down, you can just see him think:<P>"What, this is impossible! I AM INVINCIBLE!! Oh no, I'm falling, I'm falling, I'm falliiiiing! Oh, what a world, what a world!"

[Tar-Alcarin]

I was kind of ****ed about the Flashlight eye myself. Where in the book does it say that they Eye has light beams? It doesnt. The eye is jsut that, an eye with like 20/5 vision, that in my opinion is stupid of Fran, Phillipa and Peter. Why take an already skewered fact and make it more skewered? What is the point in that.

[Cinderella]

I'm v. hesitant to criticize RotK right now, as I thought it was absolutely amazing and am waiting for the EE to get bitter about things missing or changed... however:<BR>Sauron's searchlight was... ridiculous, to say the least. I guess it was just the writers trying to really shove a point in our faces. Though, it is an inconsistency in the films as Sauron's 'highbeams' weren't in the first two movies as far as I can remember.<BR>So, yes, I found that little addition quite, dumb, to put it bluntly

[The Only Real Estel]

A copy of my post in **RotK-general impressions & opinions**:<P>I thougth that the 'spotlight' eye vision was really cheap. <BR>#1- It limits Sauron's ability to 'see all', &-<P>#2- If Sauron's eye does truly pierce 'earth, cloud, shadow, & flesh', then no amount of hiding (& no amount of elven cloak) would have hidden the two hobbits from his eye. <P>A bad choice on PJ's part, I thought.<P> That was my opinion there, & it still stands here .

[Lord of Angmar]

Yes, the spotlight was rather questionable. Not only did it leave closed the important question of whether or not Sauron was physically manifest during the War of the Ring, it also, as Estel said, hindered the idea of Sauron's all-seeing nature. The Eye was interpreted far too literally by Peter Jackson and his team. Its use was excellent in the first movie (flashing across the screen as Gandalf touched the <I>palantir</I> and the Ring, etc.) but it soon become a somewhat laughable, unauthentic symbol of Sauron's power. Furthermore, in its role as Spotlight of Gorgoroth, it looked rather ridiculous.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Furthermore, in its role as Spotlight of Gorgoroth, it looked rather ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lol, very much so. In all of the other things that were wrong about it's portrayl I'd almost forgotten how dumb it looked .

[DarkRose]

I actually thought the eye was fine, heh. I thought it added a little suspense that one could become trapped in the beam, and that the hobbits had to dodge it.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>and that the hobbits had to dodge it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Or do a quick drunken dance before falling down .

[Olorin_TLA]

"trapped in the beam" amkes me think of Sauron's Tractorbeam.

[Finwe]

What I thought was stupid was Frodo's little I'm-a-druggie-and-an-alcoholic-too dance, before falling down to hide from the "Tractorbeam." Honestly!

[DarkRose]

Oh honestly, I should have known that I would get fun poked at me if I defended the "lighthouse". <P>I suppose you all are right in saying that said "drunken dance" looked a little strange, and that the beam was a tiny bit unneeded. <P>Still, I don't mind the way it was done. I suppose I'm easily pleased?

[The Only Real Estel]

Hey, it's your opinion, which nobody can take from you . The main thing is that it completly nulifies Saruman's lines in FotR, something that I don't think any director should do to his own movie.

[Olorin]

Just to play devil's advocate, how else would PJ have expressed the feeling of the eye being upon someone. I mean, in the book it can say "and we felt a strong evil and knew the eye of the enemy was upon us" or something to that extent, but not in the movie.<P>Do I think PJ could have picked something better? Yes. No question. But I don't think it was COMPLETELY terrible.

[Lord of Angmar]

Well, he could have used the eye in the way he did in the first movie, as an image that never existed in the physical setting of the story but which flashed onto the screen at just the right dramatic moments.

[Olorin]

You're quite right, Lord of Angmar. Now I can't think of anything good to say about it other than it showed how Sauron was distracted by the onslaught.

[The Saucepan Man]

I can understand why people didn't like it. But I thought that the "roving Eye" worked well, as a film device, to convey the sense that Sauron was fixed upon the Battle at the Black Gate until the moment that Frodo claimed the Ring. <P>And there is a justification for this in the book:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were laid bare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As for the searchlight on the Plateau of Gorgoroth? Well, it should have been fixed on the forthcoming confrontation at the Black Gate, but it did make for a good dramatic moment.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were laid bare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> True, but I doubt Tolkien meant that you could see a beam of light pointing towards the door (& I'm not saying that you meant that, either, Saucepan Man). I think it would've worked well enough to go with the <B>Lord of Angmar</B> idea :/.<p>[ 3:58 PM December 31, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I agree that the first time we see the Eye in <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I>, the effect is very good.<P>Perhaps Jackson could have had a closeup of the Eye, panned out to the Black Gate to show where it was looking, and then followed that up with a side journey (of quite a few miles, not just a 5 minute walk away like the film had it as) to Frodo and Sam.<P>This would have shown that the Eye was fixed on the battle. It would have eliminated the skewed logic of the Eye not being able to see behind that clump of dirt that the Hobbits were hiding behind. It would also have done away with the silly light.<P>But on the whole I don't like the idea of a huge eyeball floating above the Barad-dur anyway.

[rudeboy]

If only PJ could have had the eye hidden from shadow, and then suddenly Frodo & Sam seeing it, but the eye not seeing them, as it was fixed on the black gate. (As what happened in the book, Frodo thinks he has been seen. This is what confuses people about Sauron because Frodo actually see's the eye, some people thought it was a metaphor!)

[mark12_30]

In support of <B>rudeboy</B>'s point above, here is the quote from the Mount Doom chapter:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...the cruel pinnacles and iron crown of the topmost tower of Barad-Dur. One moment only it stared out, but as from some great window immeasurably high there stabbed northward a flame of red, the flicker of a piercing Eye; and then the shadows were furled again and the terrible vision was removed. The Eye was not turned to them: it was gazing north to where the Captains of the West stood at bay. and thither all its malice was now bent, as the Power moved to strike its deadly blow; but Frodo at that dreadful glimpse fell as one stricken mortally. His hand sought the chain around his neck.<P>Sam knelt by him. Faint, almost inaudibly, he heard Frodo whispering: "Help me, Sam! Help me, Sam! Hold my hand! I can't stop it." Sam took his master's hands and laid them together, palm to palm, and kissed them; and then he held them gently between his own. The thought came suddenly to him, "He's spotted us! It's all up, or it soon will be. Now, Sam Gamgee, this is the end of ends."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>1-- It is hidden til this moment.<P>2-- It does actually knock Frodo down "as one stricken mortally". Wood gave a pretty good impression of that, I think.

[TheSquireof Aragorn]

I think people are forgetting that this movie wasn't written for only Tolkien fans. I think people need to realize that it wasn't Peter Jackson's job to have an in-depth movie that told everything about the story of the Lord of the Rings. His job was to make LOTR available to the masses, who are not as into Tolkien as we are. My personal opinion is that if Peter Jackson were to make LOTR into what everyone here seems to expect, a lot of the time it would be a very boring movie.<P>Now bringing this together together with the topic, I think it was added for suspense and to show that Sauron could really see what was going on in his lands. (Frodo and Sam hiding from it behind a rock, a little corny yes)But i thought it was very cool when the black gate opened and Saurons army emerged surrounded in the light of Sauron's eye.<p>[ 9:50 PM January 03, 2004: Message edited by: TheSquireof Aragorn ]

[Teleri]

I've had this really frightenning idea of what Souron's eye might have looked like since I first read the books. I will not attempt to describe it, but will only say: Souron is not, never was, and never will be a lighthouse!<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think people are forgetting that this movie wasn't written for only Tolkien fans. I think people need to realize that it wasn't Peter Jackson's job to have an in-depth movie that told everything about the story of the Lord of the Rings. His job was to make LOTR available to the masses, who are not as into Tolkien as we are. My personal opinion is that if Peter Jackson were to make LOTR into what everyone here seems to expect, a lot of the time it would be a very boring movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Of course it had to be "for the masses" (though that phrase is beginning to sicken me when I hear it), but that doesn't mean that Tolkien fans should not also be satisfied. In my opinion, PJ did an excelent job in most areas, and when I think of the other attempts at adapting Lord of the Rings to film, I am greatful that his version was not an utter falure. <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But i thought it was very cool when the black gate opened and Saurons army emerged surrounded in the light of Sauron's eye. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>That was good, visually. Very cool. Not quite what I had pictured, but then, why on earth should it be?

[doug*platypus]

50 years in the future. Tolkien carefully explains the Eye of Sauron to Jackson in heaven:<P><B>"Fool!! I didn't mean it literally!!"</B><P>The big stupid flaming eye is the single worst thing in the movie, most notably ROTK. Difficult for them to show otherwise, but they managed to overcome so many other obstacles that I'm sure a solution to this one could have been found. <P>I never took the Eye of Sauron to be literally a great big ugly eye on top of the Dark Tower for all and sundry to see. I thought it was in the mind of those that could perceive it - Frodo, Galadriel, the Nazgûl, anyone wearing the Ring, Gandalf, Saruman, anyone looking in the Palantír. They <B>definitely</B> should have stopped short of making it a searchlight. That robbed us of some of the most harrowing passages in the book, where Frodo begins to feel the presence of Sauron much closer.

[The Only Real Estel]

doug: here's a solution that comes to mind:<P> Show it glowing from a window like LotR discribed. Not as cool looking, but probably would be better. I dunno, the eye on top of the tower thing isn't a huge deal with me.

[TheSquireof Aragorn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The big stupid flaming eye is the single worst thing in the movie, most notably ROTK. Difficult for them to show otherwise, but they managed to overcome so many other obstacles that I'm sure a solution to this one could have been found. <P>I never took the Eye of Sauron to be literally a great big ugly eye on top of the Dark Tower for all and sundry to see. I thought it was in the mind of those that could perceive it - Frodo, Galadriel, the Nazgûl, anyone wearing the Ring, Gandalf, Saruman, anyone looking in the Palantír. They definitely should have stopped short of making it a searchlight. That robbed us of some of the most harrowing passages in the book, where Frodo begins to feel the presence of Sauron much closer.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Lord of the Rings is open to interpretation, the eye upon Barad-dur is simply Peter Jackson's interpretation. The lord of the rings movies are just PJ's idea of Middle Earth. If you think Sauron did not fit on top of the dark tower, then i ask you, where would he be better suited in a way that people can understand who and what he is?<BR>Another question is, how do we know JRR didn't mean it literally?

[Lord of Angmar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you think Sauron did not fit on top of the dark tower, then i ask you, where would he be better suited in a way that people can understand who and what he is?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I see what you are saying, Squire, but don't you think it is a tad misleading to represent Sauron the Maia as a giant flaming eye when there is in fact no conclusive evidence to say that he is? It seems to me that this does nothing to advance the audience's notions of Sauron's identity ("Is the Eye the same Sauron from the prologue of the first movie?" "Saruman said he could not take physical form, so how is he an eye?"). Sauron as he appeared in the prologue of the first film would have been fine.<p>[ 9:05 PM January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[TheSquireof Aragorn]

Good point

[Arcuwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I never took the Eye of Sauron to be literally a great big ugly eye on top of the Dark Tower for all and sundry to see. I thought it was in the mind of those that could perceive it - Frodo, Galadriel, the Nazgûl, anyone wearing the Ring, Gandalf, Saruman, anyone looking in the Palantír. They definitely should have stopped short of making it a searchlight. That robbed us of some of the most harrowing passages in the book, where Frodo begins to feel the presence of Sauron much closer.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I completely agree, doug*platypus. When I read the books, I viewed it the same way, only certain people could see the eye, and when they did, it was in their own mind, not stuck up on some tower shooting out orange light. Sauron had no physical form at the time, so how could he be seen as an obviously tangible eye? As for the spotlight, it reminded me of a cheesy video game...

[doug*platypus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Show it glowing from a window like LotR discribed. Not as cool looking, but probably would be better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good suggestion! I guess after all it wasn't the fact that an eye was shown, but the way that it was shown that bothered me. Less is usually more, in my opinion. And I suppose I'd be less disappointed in the whole concept if the lighthouse idea had been dropped.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And I suppose I'd be less disappointed in the whole concept if the lighthouse idea had been dropped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Same here. I thought that PJ's eye-on-top-of-the-tower concept wasn't to bad, but I really didn't like the lighthouse scene. For reasons I've already stated at least once or twice above.

[Kronos]

There actually further quotes from LOTR that support this "Eye as searchlight" motif.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Describing the gaze as like a finger and passing like an arm, does seem to say that the gaze of the eye was directional and focused.

[The Only Real Estel]

True, but a black shadow is much different than a direct beam of light.

[Kronos]

So its only the colour that you have a problem with then?

[Essex]

There are plenty of areas of the text that allow for Jackson's interpretation of the eye looking around as he shows cinematically. Quite a few have been explained above, but there are more.<P>For example the hobbits both know once they cross the boundary of the mountains and into Mordor that they cannot wear the ring as they will be found at once. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Without any clear purpose he <I> (Sam)</I> drew out the Ring and put it on again. Immediately he felt the great burden of its weight, and felt afresh, but now more strong and urgent than ever, <B>the malice of the Eye of Mordor, searching, trying to pierce the shadows that it had made for its own defence,</B> but which now hindered it in its unquiet and doubt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds pretty much like an eye searching around his territory to me. How else could Jackson show this? I have no problem with the eye searching around the plains of Gorgoroth. I think it works particularly well when Frodo puts on the ring, and we see his gaze move towards mount doom. <P>As Jackson has stated, he had to show Sauron in SOME form or another for cinematic purposes. An eye searching round is fine by me, and can be said to be true to the text. This is far better than having a physical body of Sauron confronting Aragorn as was originally filmed by Jackson. That would have spoiled the movie. <P>My main problem is with Sauron having a direct 'view' of Frodo as he places the ring on in Bree. This should not have happened. It was ok for the eye to see Frodo eventually on the Seat of Seeing on Parth Galen, and for him to see Frodo (with a direct view) at the cracks of Doom.<P>Still, it amuses me that we are moaning about silly little points like this. It goes to show how GOOD the film really is, if we can take time to moan about a 'searchlight'!

[Sleeping Beauty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "What, this is impossible! I AM INVINCIBLE!! Oh no, I'm falling, I'm falling, I'm falliiiiing! Oh, what a world, what a world!" <BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very cute, Lord Melkor.<P>Seriously, I agree with most that's being said here, but isn't it just a bit strange to have this great evil that's been talked about the whole entire three movies and not have something dramatic? But is it visible to everyone in the movie? Or is it just visible for us to see so we would know the eye is there. As we follow Sam and Frodo, and as the tower falls, we can see the eye so we know what is happening. It could not have been visible to every Joe Schmo Rohirrim or Gondorian soilder. But we had to see things so we would know what was going on. The Power of the Eye was growing stronger and stronger the closer Frodo and Sam made it to Mt. Doom. Who's to say Sauron wasn't paranoid enough to make sweeps over his own lands. If you had all your strength gone in one tiny little object, I would be frantically searching for it as well. He knew the ring would work it's way back to him. So why not keep a lookout? I admit it was a bit cheesy, but deemed necessary as to make a point.

[Firefoot]

I think that the giant eye on Barad-dur was a good way to show the eye of Sauron. I also think, however, that making it into a spotlight was rather dumb. And when the tower is falling...Lord Melkor, you put it perfectly. That part of the movie was so dumb.<P>One thing that I think is a problem with portraying it as a giant eye is a problem my brother had. He has not read the books, only seen the movies, and he thinks that that is all that Sauron is - a big, red, fiery eyeball. I don't know if other people have had this problem too but it seems likely enough that if the movie was the only contact a person had with LotR that they could easily be led into believing that Sauron is an eyeball.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So its only the colour that you have a problem with then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you'd read previous posts you'd see that that is certainly not the case. If I <I>have</I> to reiterate, I will:<P>*I do not like the concept because it limits Sauron's all-seeing power, & it also deliberatly goes back on a previous line in FotR. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sounds pretty much like an eye searching around his territory to me. How else could Jackson show this? I have no problem with the eye searching around the plains of Gorgoroth. I think it works particularly well when Frodo puts on the ring, and we see his gaze move towards mount doom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>O, I think it'd work fine to show his eye swivel towards the mountain, just x the 'beam gaze'. As Lord of Angmar (I believe) brought up earlier, they could've used the frequent shots of the eye like they did in TTT to show that it was looking in a particular direction; without having to resort to the beam .

[The Wraith]

I have to say it was bloody hilarious watching that eye frantically looking round!It was like 'noooooo this can't be happening.....!!'..crack, one of the prongs on the tower broke.Bye bye Sauron!

[Lachwen]

I actually liked the way PJ showed the Eye of Sauron (though the spotlight bit did seem a bit over-the-top for me). Remember, when Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's hand, he lost a lot of his power, because he had it bound up in the Ring. So he's gained some power by the time of the War of the Ring, but not enough to make himself a body and a scary suit of armor like he had at the end of the Second Age. I do think Tolkien literally meant an Eye at the top of Barad-dûr, but the searchlight going over Gorgoroth still looked a bit funny.<P>And, yes, that was a very amusing take on Sauron's fall. However, I much prefered the way it was depicted in the books.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed: and then a hush fell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I find that a much better ending (sends chills up my spine every time I read it!) than: "Oh, crud, I'm falling! Oh, crud, I'm exploding!" It seemed a little anti-climactic to me.

[Sparrow]

The eye didn't work for me. Putting aside that fact that its existence in the mvoie cannot be support with concrete evidence that it existed in the book, I just plain did not like it. It looked ridiculous, for starters, and for seconds it left audiences not familiar with Tolkien wondering why the Dark Lord, who supposedly could not take physical form, had in fact taken physical form - as a giant, red, electrically charged Eye, no less, perched at the top of a tall tower. It is implausible, confusing and outright silly.<P>But that's just me and my two cents.<P>~Sparrow

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I do think Tolkien literally meant an Eye at the top of Barad-dûr,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Eh, I'm afraid the books say that it's nothing more than a red glow from one of the topermost windows. A powerful glow, but nothing more.

[Erundil]

I'm going to sound like a yes-man, but I don't care. I think the Eye was necessary to a certain extent. As Lord of Angmar and Estel have said over and over, the Eye in FotR was well-used. Flashing across the screen, making everyone who was watching for the first time jump. <BR>Barad-dûr was good in the first movie also: partly completed, and you never actually saw the top. This is just my two cents, but I think that the top of the Dark Tower would have been put to much better use as part of Minas Morgul. In fact, with the two prongs, when I saw the TTT poster for the first time, that's what I thought it was. I really wish that PJ and Co. had used the Tower better, flashing it across the screen only occasionally and keeping it for the most part veiled in shadow.<BR>So, to sum up, the Eye of Sauron could have been much better done, and the whole spotlight thing was very, very retarded and should have been much more well-thougt-out, the mosre so because it contradicts the first two movies by adding something completely new.<BR>Actually, I just had a flash of insight or idiocy. Maybe the Dark Tower was a lighthouse for anyone who was on Lake Nurnen? <p>[ 1:32 AM January 15, 2004: Message edited by: Erundil ]