Sauron versus Aragorn

[Nerwen]

Yes, I knew about that. I'd never attempt to defend something so ridiculous, but perhaps I can explain it:

-It probably follows some half-baked set of rules that says there must be a one-on-one fight between the Villain and the Hero (i.e. Aragorn, Frodo having been pretty much fired as the hero by that point- but that's a whole other issue). There are things that made it through to the final cut that reflect that kind of "Screenwriting 101" thinking, too. I know this all sounds pretty belittling. Okay, I'm not saying everything about the script's terrible, by any means- but I believe the writers were relatively inexperienced, and at times it shows.

-It also seems like a very misguided attempt at canonicity or fan-service, using the same "anything Tolkien wrote can be inserted seamlessly into anything else he wrote" reasoning that now has Azog all over "The Hobbit". They might even have had some notion that the "Annatar" nonsense would balance the otherwise uncomplicated portrayal of the evil side. Without thinking it through, of course.

-Finally, I wonder how serious Peter Jackson ever was about including the scene in the finished version? He's one of those directors who always shoot vast amounts of extra material, just on the off-chance they might find some use for it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I have seen the feature about this on the Return of the King Extended DVD. When I was younger I didn't object to the films nearly as much and as such I do have the Extended Editions but I haven't watched them all the way through/with much attention for years. Anyway, frankly I find it absurd that this concept made it all the way to being filmed. As you say, it's totally inconsistent with their own characterisation of Sauron: as a wholly, indeed arbitrarily dark and evil figure, as a giant eyeball, as a hidden menace who never leaves his tower. And while I think it was the right decision for them to replace Sauron with a troll in the end, where's Pippin's heroic slaying of the troll?

It reminds me of the idea that apparently at one point they wanted the Mouth of Sauron to appear as an attractive woman (Kate Winslet possibly?) to "represent the temptations Aragorn is facing" or something. What temptations? And why Aragorn? Frodo and Sam are toiling up Mount Doom and they're worried about how they characterise Aragorn. I guess common sense tended to triumph somewhat in the long run, albeit in the Sauron case later than you might expect.

Well, it just shows how much, despite the whole "you bow to no one" fuss and attempt to show the Hobbits as the heroes and trying to keep the basic idea of LotR that one does not win by the strength of arms, the filmmakers were affected by the common mentality of cheap heroic-movie expectations. Therefore, who cares about Pippin, we want surfing Legolases; who cares about Frodo and Sam, we want to see Aragorn dueling Sauron.

And whereas the idea of Mouth of Sauron being a woman would have been interesting especially in a story consisting mostly of male characters, I am afraid that it would be no win and it would just slip into some "dark seductress" film stereotype. Besides, I think at this point, Aragorn is already past all temptations. At least where the Ring is concerned, and also where sitting at home and trying to just preserve his new kingdom a la Denethor is concerned. His final decision to march to the Black Gate was the final act of bravery and possibly even self-sacrifice in order to help Frodo's mission to succeed. He can't even run anymore. So what could Sauron still tempt him with? Sure, Sauron could not have known he did not have the Ring, so maybe in his mind Aragorn falling to it could still be an option, but I doubt PJ would think so far.

It really makes me wonder why Sauron-as-Annatar never appeared in the opening sequence of Fellowship, yet they wanted him to appear that way at the Black Gate.

Exactly. But then again, not sure how much the development of the script went, maybe the idea came only later than when the opening had been already made? I don't know.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

-It probably follows some half-baked set of rules that says there must be a one-on-one fight between the Villain and the Hero (i.e. Aragorn, Frodo having been pretty much fired as the hero by that point- but that's a whole other issue). There are things that made it through to the final cut that reflect that kind of "Screenwriting 101" thinking, too. I know this all sounds pretty belittling. Okay, I'm not saying everything about the script's terrible, by any means- but I believe the writers were relatively inexperienced, and at times it shows.

Indeed. They even basically say as much in there. That's why I think they decided they have to keep the part of Aragorn fighting someone, even if it were to be a totally random troll (which is even a bit downgrading to Aragorn already at that point, in my opinion. After all, he had fought a troll before already in Moria. I think one would have expected at least a Nazgul, but I guess that comes from the fact that they had only the material of him fighting Sauron, and Nazgul would probably be at least slightly smaller enemy).

-It also seems like a very misguided attempt at canonicity or fan-service, using the same "anything Tolkien wrote can be inserted seamlessly into anything else he wrote" reasoning that now has Azog all over "The Hobbit". They might even have had some notion that the "Annatar" nonsense would balance the otherwise uncomplicated portrayal of the evil side. Without thinking it through, of course.

Yep, I would say you are right on this one probably as well. (But that isn't a very good defense of it, right )

-Finally, I wonder how serious Peter Jackson ever was about including the scene in the finished version? He's one of those directors who always shoot vast amounts of extra material, just on the off-chance they might find some use for it.

That is possible, but the more it surprises me that he actually didn't shoot at least a short scene of Aragorn fighting a troll, or something similar they could replace it with. It is clear that they were all the time totally and absolutely serious about having the Sauron-fight, it was a no-question thing, nobody even dared to assume it would not happen. Because if they did, then they would have had some backup option of having Aragorn fighting something else, in order to make the proper "one on one, hero vs. villain" epic ending.

[Zigûr]

I really don't think they knew what to do with Sauron in general. In the opening of Fellowship he shows up with zero explanation as some big horrible person who made a Ring. As I've said elsewhere, this is why in my opinion an adaptation of The Hobbit really needed to come first. When you have the mysterious "Necromancer" becoming the main villain in the sequel it really is a lot more dramatically effective. You probably couldn't sell that to Hollywood, but my point is that we never really hear anything about Sauron: not that he helped forge the Rings, nor that he was significantly responsible for the destruction of Númenor, two events which establish him as a deceiver and despicable villain, and both of which are in the source material (although Númenor is largely confined to the Appendices, but that didn't stop them elsewhere, with Aragorn and Arwen for instance - is there a risk of treading into The Silmarillion and other material for which they lack the rights regarding Númenor?). Anyway, I'm not saying that these events should have been dwelt upon, but they could at least have been given as elaboration at some point for the evil of Sauron.

Instead the filmmakers don't know what to do: first he's just a spooky costume apparently defeated because he stuck his fingers out at the wrong time. Then they turn him into a giant floating eyeball and give all the actual villainy to Saruman, upon whom swathes of time in the first and second films are unnecessarily spent. The fight with Aragorn is just another example of this. They don't even know their own interpretation of Sauron. Is he an eyeball who "cannot yet take physical form" (an example of both misinterpretation and very un-Tolkien-like vocabulary with "physical", incidentally)? Is he still a big armoured dark lord? Aragorn sees him this way in the palantír in the Extended Edition, and so they film him coming out to fight before the Morannon after appearing as a seraphic vision. Now in "The Hobbit" he's a shadow in a corridor.

Professor Tolkien is impressively subtle in his depiction of Sauron, of course, and that makes certain demands upon readers which are more possible in literature than film. It turns out he was too subtle for the filmmakers, at least. They have the challenge and the opportunity to bring these elements out into the open, but it's too great a task for them and they retreat in the opposite direction, instead making him a cardboard cutout, leaving us with an empty suit of armour and a giant floating eyeball. The latter of these denies us even of the possibility of Sauron-the-absence, the faceless, often nameless foe who operates solely through armies and agents. Professor Tolkien gives us both takes on Sauron, of course, across the Second Age and the Third. The filmmakers give us neither, just hollow images, neither meaningfully present nor genuinely absent. They had the archetypal Fantasy villain in their hands and frankly I think they bungled it with particular incompetence.

[Thinlómien]

While I'm really happy they realised that some sort of duel between Aragorn and Sauron would totally undermine the message of the story and Aragorn's heroism, I was actually kind of positively surprised by that clip. (I've heard of this duel idea before but I hadn't seen the footage.)

I mean, come on, how cool is that Sauron manifests himself in an angelic form? That they wanted to show what kind of good and noble stuff he was originally made of? That is kind of awesome. And while I abhor Orlando Bloom's acting in general (not sure if this is a necessary disclaimer from anyone on this forum but anyway ) his expression looking at the angelic Sauron kind of sends shivers down my spine. Because he looks actually intrigued or awed or kind of enchanted by the main villain. (Nice nod to the Eregion Elves and Númenóreans being enchanted by Sauron.) This is actually the kind of "subtlety" I always wanted from Peter Jackson.

But of course from the canon point of view this is just more and more nonsense, or did PJ skip the part where it says that Sauron lost his ability to assume a fair form? That was quite explicitly stated.

Last of all, I think they could have left the duel out all in all. Aragorn dueling a troll is just kind of too random (anyway it should be Pippin doing that, not him).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The very fact of it is irrebuttable proof positive that PJ is completely unqualified to make any Tolkien movie whatsoever, including Mr Bliss. The man truly has no clue.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

While I'm really happy they realised that some sort of duel between Aragorn and Sauron would totally undermine the message of the story and Aragorn's heroism, I was actually kind of positively surprised by that clip. (I've heard of this duel idea before but I hadn't seen the footage.)

I mean, come on, how cool is that Sauron manifests himself in an angelic form? That they wanted to show what kind of good and noble stuff he was originally made of? That is kind of awesome. And while I abhor Orlando Bloom's acting in general (not sure if this is a necessary disclaimer from anyone on this forum but anyway ) his expression looking at the angelic Sauron kind of sends shivers down my spine. Because he looks actually intrigued or awed or kind of enchanted by the main villain. (Nice nod to the Eregion Elves and Númenóreans being enchanted by Sauron.) This is actually the kind of "subtlety" I always wanted from Peter Jackson.

Mayhaps (pun intended ). But I am not sure how much "subtlety" there is in having the main villain walking about merrily on two legs, in the size of a house, whichever form he might currently have. Anyway, as I have outlined above, it might be nice, but it is too late for subtlety. Had he done this in the first movie, fine. But PJ's Sauron is already a Dark Lord in a Dark Tower (resp. a fiery eye on top of a mostly orange tower) and remembering two minutes before the end (okay, okay, 45 minutes before the end, but two minutes before Mordor crumbles down) that Sauron might actually have that more subtle, tricky side to him is not going to change the movie - rather, it will confuse the hordes of casual viewers who will be like "what, how did Sauron recruit an Archangel at Inferno?"

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But PJ's Sauron is already a Dark Lord in a Dark Tower (resp. a fiery eye on top of a mostly orange tower)

Oh, so that's who the Highly Irritable Lighthouse was supposed to be!

[Galendor]

Complete silliness. If PJ HAD used his intentional footage of Aragorn sword-fighting with Sauron at the Black Gate, I wonder whom he envisioned winning this fight, and what would have happened after that?

Presumably he intended Aragorn to "win". But if he had won (i.e. killed Sauron with Anduril), would the quest of the ring-bearer immediately become meaningless? If Sauron won, then Aragorn would be dead? A sad beginning for the Fourth Age of Middle Earth.

Neither would have worked, so I imagine PJ probably intended some dramatic stalemate in the fight, or Aragorn in imminent peril of death, but either potentiality resolved just in the nick of time by the Ring+Smeagol falling into the fires of Mount Doom. Or even Aragorn winning heroically and running Sauron through just at the moment the Ring is destroyed (for a complete over-the-top double-kill of Sauron).

At least if Sauron had appeared in physical form to fight at the Black Gate, we might have been spared that scene when the Dark Tower crumbled and the giant eye (which was supposed to actually be Sauron) was furtively looking back and forth in a complete panic as the tower fell. Remember that scene? Sorry if it brings back bad memories...

[Galendor]

I know how it would have gone: Aragorn and Sauron would fight while the armies watched, ordered to stay out of the fight. Aragorn would get knocked around fiercely during the fight (more than a mortal man could endure and yet live). But in the end he would summon the strength of the Numenor and heroically behead Sauron.

He would turn in exhausted triumph towards his army, but behind him we would see Sauron pick up his head and place it back on his neck. Gandalf would despair and look at the ground, knowing that Sauron cannot be killed while the Ring still exists (he would probably mutter something to this effect so that the audience understands this subtlety).

Sauron and Aragorn would fight again and this time it would go badly for the exhausted Aragorn. Finally, he would be on his knees and Sauron would pause to gloat before killing him. Flash to the events on Mount Doom, where Frodo is defeated by the will of the Ring (everything is going just bad, bad, bad). Then Smeagol attacks, and the Ring + Smeagol fall into the fires, etc.

Flash back to Sauron, who bursts into flame or explodes or whatever just before killing Aragorn. Aragorn, Gandalf et al. realize that Frodo was successful and the rest of the movie proceeds. This way both Aragorn AND Frodo get to be heroic and "defeat" Sauron in their own way.