[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

I do appreciate PJ's keeping true to the subtle LOTR allusions to Eru's and/or the Valar's interventions in the story (in the prologue the "But something then happened that the Ring did not intend"), and the later Gandalf comment in Moria. Although I do wonder what non-book people made of such observations.

There is very little to go on as far as the existence of Eru and the Valar are concerned in the films. Gandalf's speech to Pippin in Minas Tirith is the only scene that springs to mind as coming close, although there may be others. Certainly, in the Prologue, there is not much that someone who was not already a fan or who was specifically looking for religious themes would pick up on.

But your noting Galadriel's comment about the Ring's thwarted intention brings another point to mind. In the book, Tolkien establishes the Ring's identity as a character very early on, in Gandalf's discourse with Frodo in The Shadow of the Past. With this line, Jackson does the same. Audiences are encouraged to view the Ring as a character in its own right from the outset which, given its central role, is, I think, vital.

Originally Posted by alatar

I can only speculate how the de-fingering of Sauron was perceived that first time.

The only possible significance that I can think of, as far as "non-book fan" viewers are concerned, is the missed opportunity to establish a link between nine-fingered Sauron and nine-fingered Frodo. Although, given the immense time lapse between the films' respective release dates, I am not sure that this would really add much to their appreciation. I suspect that Jackson was more interested in having Isildur vanquish Sauron himself, rather than cut the Ring off his finger ex post facto. It does, I suppose, make for a more tense and exciting climax to the scene.