The Necromancer

[Dilettante]

(the detective is one of my all time most hated literary characters

Who doesn't love Sherlock Holmes.


Poor Benedict! Maybe he needs a few of us to go sit him down and and educate him over some tea.

Arguably, the same could be said for Peter Jackson.

[blue]

I haven't seen this so-called Cumberbatch as Sherlock, I might just have to look him up. Is it on BBC America?

[alatar]

Sigh. Can't wait to see what new spells the good and noble Saruman has to unlearn between the Hobbit and LotR.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Who doesn't love Sherlock Holmes.

Me. I'm not very keen on detective stories as it is, but there's something about Sherlock that makes me want to slap him with a wet fish. Thankfully the version conjoured up by The Moff and Cumberbatch is much more enjoyable. I think the single minded smugness is more appealing when brought across by a younger actor. He's more...geeky than irritating. The old Jeremy Brett version from the early 80s epitomises exactly what I didn't like about the character - a snooty know-all. No, I don't like the recent Hollywood version, either.

Given this, I'm fairly confident Cumberbatch can give us a very good turn in The Hobbit despite clearly not being a fan at all. Even though I wanted Richard Wilson to voice Smaug...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Me. I'm not very keen on detective stories as it is, but there's something about Sherlock that makes me want to slap him with a wet fish. Thankfully the version conjoured up by The Moff and Cumberbatch is much more enjoyable. I think the single minded smugness is more appealing when brought across by a younger actor. He's more...geeky than irritating. The old Jeremy Brett version from the early 80s epitomises exactly what I didn't like about the character - a snooty know-all. No, I don't like the recent Hollywood version, either.

My favourite version of Holmes is the A.C.Doyle version.

Seriously. I hate all the movie Sherlocks. But I can't read any other "pure mystery stories" (I mean those that are only mystery, not mixed with adventure and etc) except for Doyle's, not after I fell in love with the Holmes style.



But going back to the original topic, it seems that there's a lot of confusion about Sauron's eyeball being the Necromancer, and even more that Saruman is somehow involved in Necromancy himself. Do they think that a big flaming Saruman's eyeball will be more appealing to the audience?

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

... big flaming Saruman's eyeball...

That would be a really good insult.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

That would be a really good insult.

Are you planning on insulting PJ and his actors with it?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by narfforc

I expect to see something almost fully formed and man shaped, maybe wrapped in a hooded cloak. I really do not want to see that stupid Eye again. I believe that The Eye of Sauron was shown in the wrong context in the films, for a start Tolkien wrote that the Eye was within the Tower of Barad-dur. I believe that the Eye was merely a device, a physical representation of the will of Sauron. The Orcs saw it through his controlling will of them, it appeared in the Mirror of Galadriel because his will was stretching forth searching for Galadriel, yet both Pippin and Aragorn looking into the Palantir refer to seeing Him and not The Eye. In The Black Gate Is Closed Gollum says 'But master is going to take it to him, straight to the Black Hand. Later in the same chapter Frodo says 'It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy', and Gollum replies 'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough', Gollum has seen the real Sauron. So for me, The Necromancer would have to be a figure and not the Eye.

Yes, I agree that the Eye was more of a device. For me, it brought to mind 1984 and the Eyes of Big Brother. A symbol or metaphor for something which has eyes and spies everywhere. Though after reading about sanwe I have to think that there was also another layer to the meaning of the Eye, that Sauron had in some way mastered the ability to 'see' into the thoughts of others, whether through use of the Rings or not. The 'Eye' is also a good counterpoint to the Palantiri.

Personally, I'm quite keen to see Sauron as a real person and not just a symbol.

I'm also keen to see how Christopher Lee plays Saruman, whether he is as deep in the mire as he was during Lord of the Rings or not. I should hope he will be more intellectual and less corrupted, and maybe Lee will channel a little of his role as Lord Summerisle in The Wicker Man and make Saruman charming yet sinister.

Originally Posted by Eonwe

Definitely. But the BBC series is a very good adaption. Much better than the new films, for example. Steven Moffat is definitely better at writing Sherlock episodes than Doctor Who (I don't know if others will agree with me, but I didn't think that the last series was that great. I mean, Matt Smith is good, and some parts are good, but some of the plotlines/twists were kind of pointless).

On a similar but more related note, I hadn't seen either of the two (Martin Freeman or Benedict Cumberbatch) in a main role before watching Sherlock, and I have to say that they are both good actors though it probably will be a bit weird to have the Smaug and Bilbo be the same as Sherlock and Watson respectively.

I wish the Moff would give up Doctor Who to someone else. His efforts with Sherlock are fantastic (it's not ALL his work, it's also half the work of Mark Gatiss) and I think it suits his style much better. RTD handled Doctor Who better. It was epic without being ridiculous.

I'd been agitating for Martin Freeman to play Bilbo for years. He is perfect for the role. If you want to see him in some other roles that I thought exemplified how good he'd be for Bilbo then I recommend either the modern film version of Hitchhikers Guide or the BBC original version of The Office.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

That would be a really good insult.

A Big Flaming Saruman's Eyeball would also be a very good sweetie. Kind of like a jawbreaker, which takes hours to eat, with alternating layers of flavour, some of them horrible. I'd go into business making them but I'd get sued

[Eruhen]

A Big Flaming Saruman's Eyeball would also be a very good sweetie. Kind of like a jawbreaker, which takes hours to eat, with alternating layers of flavour, some of them horrible. I'd go into business making them but I'd get sued

I almost sprayed tea all over the screen I laughed so hard at this. "Some of them horrible." I'm suddenly reminded of Bertie Bott's Every-Flavour Beans (which I will never eat again - bad experience with one of the, shall we say, less-savoury ones).

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

My favourite version of Holmes is the A.C.Doyle version.

Definitely. But the BBC series is a very good adaption. Much better than the new films, for example. Steven Moffat is definitely better at writing Sherlock episodes than Doctor Who (I don't know if others will agree with me, but I didn't think that the last series was that great. I mean, Matt Smith is good, and some parts are good, but some of the plotlines/twists were kind of pointless).

On a similar but more related note, I hadn't seen either of the two (Martin Freeman or Benedict Cumberbatch) in a main role before watching Sherlock, and I have to say that they are both good actors though it probably will be a bit weird to have the Smaug and Bilbo be the same as Sherlock and Watson respectively.

And anyway, despite this possibility of Sauron being at the Battle of the Five Armies, Tauriel, and the appearance of Kili, I'm still looking forward to the film.

[Eruhen]

Originally Posted by G55

...big flaming Saruman's eyeball...

Is it weird that this reminded me of HUGE FLAMING EYEBROWS?



*runs away*