LotR1-FotR-Seq04

[alatar]

Not all goodly things come dressed in white...

We see Gandalf hustling along to Orthanc, to Saruman, to see what aid and comfort the head of the order can give. More great scenery. Not for a moment do I believe that Orthanc exists, yet here we see it stitched right into our reality. The aerial camera following Gandalf's ride yields an interesting viewpoint on Saruman's abode. Maybe this tower is not how you may have depicted it; to me it’s not far off.

And while I’m on the architecture of Orthanc, we see that as Gandalf passes the gate and enters the ring that the place looks much like the Shire – with trees. Book Gandalf enters a place that already has orcs and wolves and pillars and pits. PJ’s version actually makes more sense (did I just say that? ). Think about it: when Gandalf is rattling off his tale of confinement to Frodo in Rivendell, he says something like if he would have caught something in Radagast’s voice that he may have ridden into Isengard more warily and so not have been caught like the fly he was. But really, when Gandalf was going though the gate, couldn’t he have gotten a whiff of orc or wolf? What of Glamdring? Was it ‘turned off?’ I think that pride made Gandalf make claim to voice-analysis gifts while ignoring the obvious questions about seeing that much was amiss in Nan Curunir.

Anyway, here when Gandalf enters Isengard there’s no outward reason to suspect anything; unless, that is that you’re a bit paranoid and think that anyone with such immaculate landscaping just must be hiding something. On the other hand, in this version the grounds crew have a lot of work to do in a very short time.

But back to the DVD.

We hear Christopher Lee before we see him standing on the steps, and he clues us to what's going on. See Gandalf patting his horse? More positive character traits being shown as this wizard appreciates the animal's help. He could have grabbed the horse’s shoulder, but I guess that no thrill was needed here.

Did Saruman look dirtier than you expected?

Well, the Maiar meeting starts off well enough between these 'old friends,' but things don't stay that way for long. Gandalf bows his head in deference, something that you might have noticed that did not happen when he met old friends previously. Was Gandalf being polite? Or is Saruman snooty and so expected that kind of thing? Gandalf is chided regarding his use of the hobbit's leaf, so maybe this isn't an ad for the smoking lobby (plus we all know that Saruman, a duplicitous traitor scoundrel, is also a hypocritical closet smoker).

The close-up of Saruman's face might be more insight into this character. Gandalf's face is wrinkled with lines of care and laughter: Saruman has either discovered the art of Botox or is not like Gandalf. He’s more aloof and cold and appears to be able to view both bliss and hell without twitching - a soulless face with avaricious eyes. His staff too appears different than the wizened old prop carried by the Grey Pilgrim. Saruman's staff is metal, inorganic and has edges...sharp edges...hmmm. It appears more like a weapon.

Saruman's discussion of Sauron is really picking Gandalf's spirits up, and you can see him thinking, "for this I rode from the Shire? I could have gotten better from Ted Sandyman…" When Saruman cocks his head, saying "I have seen it," you just know that something's wrong. At least the real Gandalf comes back when we see the Palantir. Instead of just listening to Saruman's advice, beratings, admonitions, etc, Gandalf starts pushing back.

And the Palantir room actually makes sense as somewhere I read that you walked around it to use it; it wasn’t some ball that you used like a cell phone.

Ah-Oh! Another !shock! flash of the Eye. I think that everyone by now has figured out what's going on. Is it chance that Saruman now sits on a black throne-like chair?

But Saruman is a bit too happy about the Nine going after the Ring Bearer. I liked him better when he was selling out both the West and the East. PJ is making Saruman the movie baddie for FotR, increasing his power then somewhat, but on the other hand the White Wizard is pretty much Sauron’s flunky. You don’t get the feeling that even if Sauron is controlling Saruman that Saruman believes that he’s a free agent. Also, won’t this conflict later with the scene where the Uruks of the White Hand head for Isengard and not Barad-dur? I know that there may have been some confusion in the lower ranks, but PJ's Saruman could have saved a lot of postage by just having his Uruks head east.

Back in Orthanc’s stone walls the tension builds. Doors slam closed at a glance. I like that some of the 'prepared speech" from the books is started, but it's stopped too soon. And where did the bags under Saruman's eyes just go?

An insult starts the battle royale between these two ancient staff wielders. By the by, I never imagined that this is how the fight went down. As we may have no text to say otherwise, I concede that PJ’s vision is as valid as any other, I guess. PJ states that he didn't want the ‘electricity from the hands’ kind of fighting, and so has Gandalf and Saruman slug it out with staves that never physically touch the other. Different, but not my cup of tea/coffee. If only one of them could shoot a fireball or something.

An aside: Making use of the slo-mo and pause buttons, I was able to examine Saruman's hands and was disappointed to see that neither bore a ring. Not even a ring tan line. Sigh.

Anyway, after a fight that lasts too long, Saruman claims Gandalf's staff and so gains the upper hand, as the old saw about two staves in the hand…or was it heads…anyway. Pivoting Gandalf on his ear was just too weird, and I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean, but there’s another saying about standing one on one’s ear. I give up. Gandalf is launched skywards into the blackness. I don't think that he's killed, as the scene finish doesn’t feel that way.

Well, it now seems obvious that Gandalf isn't going to receive any help regarding the Ring from Saruman, and he may not even be able to go back and help Frodo and Sam. And these two are being hunted by the Nine, which if we didn't fear for their sakes enough before, Saruman just said that Sam and Frodo will be killed.

Just where are those two hobbits anyway? We'll get back to them next week.



*** Special off-topic note: The alatar tribe increased by one this past Sunday. Mom and new daughter are home and well. ***

[Dimturiel]

I was wondering whether anyone noticed that, when Saruman describes the Eye of Sauron to Gandalf, Gandalf leans on his staff as if he is suddenly feeling very weak and seems to be in pain. Why? Is it because, when he had seen the Eye after Bilbo had left, he too felt it "pierce his flesh"? I have always felt intrigued by this thing. And I also wonder why, when Gandal sees the Eye in the palantir, he does not tell Saruman immediately what he had just seen. Could it be because he is starting to suspect that something is not quite right with Saruman? This is all, for now, maybe I will come back with more later. ( And off topic, congratiulations Alatar!)

[Lalwendë]

I remember looking forwards to seeing Saruman, and the fact that it would be Christopher Lee playing him made this all the more intriguing, as I'm a bit of a fan. Incidentally I missed meeting him once in London, and I've been narked about it ever since. Garrr.

The depiction of Saruman and Orthanc could have been done in many different ways for me, as he is one character who has never been 'fixed' in my mind, and nor has Orthanc. If I had to choose one image I had of the place, it might have been as it appears in the film, strangely, as I've always liked the Alan Lee illustration, and he is the person responsible for this set. In his painting we can only see a small portion of the tower, yet it hints at something much, much more immense than what we are shown; the design is almost identical. I also like how the chain-link 'fence' has remained, as this is one aspect of Tolkien's description that has always stuck in my mind; it is simply weird to me. Why does Saruman have a chain link fence? Is it to keep people off the grass? Is he a park keeper?

As for Saruman, he could have been easily portrayed by a young guy for me, as I had no idea of how he might look, the only aspect I ever focussed on was his many-coloured cloak. I was disappointed not to see this! And yes, he did look a bit grubby. But I can't grumble as Christopher Lee is just fantastic. He has retained that creepy, masterful presence he had when playing Lord Summerisle, and his voice is possibly the best voice they could have chosen for Saruman. He can maintain a long monologue seemingly without drawing breath and it has a hypnotic quality.

One point that did strike me as interesting is how they show Gandalf to have incredible deference towards Saruman here. He begins by looking quite foolish, even sheepish as he listens to the leader of his order, and when Saruman starts to display his real intentions, Gandalf take some time to recover his senses. Here are two real professional actors at work.

In the books we do not actually meet Saruman until the Ents have destroyed Isengard. All we know of him is what others tell us about him. This is one of those instances where we did have to 'see' scenes which we do not personally 'see' in the books. What does everyone else think of this?

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In the books we do not actually meet Saruman until the Ents have destroyed Isengard. All we know of him is what others tell us about him. This is one of those instances where we did have to 'see' scenes which we do not personally 'see' in the books. What does everyone else think of this?

This definately works on film, if it were simply dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf or Elrond and Gandalf it would be rather boring and uneventful. In this instance we are able to see and feel Saruman much more on a tangilbe level and it at least shows us where Gandalf went after he abandoned the hobbits.

Lal, I agree that Christopher Lee's voice is exceptional here and always intrigued me. He sounds very clever and cunning. Yet the way he is actually depicted doesn't show the subtilty of his plan. The book version is great where we see Saruman try and convince Gandalf and use the logic that "our goal is to accomplish order and we can do so by claiming the ring". It seems to me that Saruman is a pawn of Sauron with no agenda of his own. I think this detracts from the actual character of Saruman and doesn't show the duplicitious nature of his treachery. One extra minute would have accomplished this. It would have made more sense when Saruman said something like "I gave you a choice but you chose the way of pain" it doesn't really seem like Gandalf was given a choice as much.

Other than that I really like this scene, where it is placed, Christopher Lee, Orthanc is more or less how I imagined it, and the scenery is great.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Yet the way he is actually depicted doesn't show the subtilty of his plan. The book version is great where we see Saruman try and convince Gandalf and use the logic that "our goal is to accomplish order and we can do so by claiming the ring". It seems to me that Saruman is a pawn of Sauron with no agenda of his own. I think this detracts from the actual character of Saruman and doesn't show the duplicitious nature of his treachery.

I agree that they did simplify Saruman's true aims, and it did come across as though he simply wanted to follow Sauron. I think that they may have done this to simplify Saruman for the audience, who may not have coped with a 'bad guy' proposing a 'third way' suddenly materialising so close to the start of the story; the film focussed on the good/evil divide, and was complex a story enough without troubling poor cinema goers' minds with Saruman's true aims. At least I hope that this wa sthe aim, as otherwise I would take it that they themselves misinterpreted the nature of Saruman.

Still, even without this, I do think that this was one of the best character depictions in the films, simply due to the sheer quality of Christopher Lee's acting! And there is a hint that Saruman is more clever than we are led to believe. As portrayed, you can see him thinking on his toes all the time.

Originally Posted by mormegil

This definately works on film, if it were simply dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf or Elrond and Gandalf it would be rather boring and uneventful. In this instance we are able to see and feel Saruman much more on a tangilbe level and it at least shows us where Gandalf went after he abandoned the hobbits.

Yes, it would have been incredibly dull to only have heard of Saruman through the talk of other people in the film. Not only that, but when we read the book, when we first actually meet Saruman, we can flip back to the pages where he was mentioned before and view that information in a new light. You can't do that with a film, so this was the only way I believe.

The other thing about Christopher Lee's voice being so suitable for Saruman is that he is able to convey 'command' or 'authority'. It's worth comparing him in LotR to how he acts in The Wicker Man; in this film again he uses his voice to convey a character who it is very difficult to defy.

[Boromir88]

Again, I have to give kudos to the acting, and I will continue because the acting is one of the stronger points of the movies. I think most of the actors did a great job in making convincing characters in the movies. Chris Lee is no different, bringing in such a beloved Tolkien fan as well as an experienced actor was a big plus for the movies.

morm brings up a good point about the simplification of Saruman's goals. He certainly does seem like Sauron's puppet, a miniature Sauron. He becomes Sauron in TTT as Sauron is in ROTK. In the movies I got this picture that he was like "the lower boss," you know in those video games...to get to the head hancho you have to beat through the lower bosses. Saruman is certainly simplified, I believe he says "We must join with Sauron."

Also, I'm not convinced that the audience could not have seen a different motive. Where now instead of just plain Middle-earth vs. Sauron/Saruman we have Middle-earth vs. Sauron vs. Saruman (which is the way I pictured it in the books). Saruman may have communicated and shared details with Sauron, but I got the impression that Sauron was using Saruman for his own purposes, and Saruman was planning to backstab Sauron.

Now could we have had this in the movies without creating a lot of complexion? I think so. I think it's been done in other movies as well, where we have multiple factions, multiple goals for each side. Each side is in it for a different reason.

Braveheart comes to mind right now where we have the Big Bad English dominating the Scots, but we have the Scottish nobles who can't break away from England because they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't decide who is to rule them, and they can't be united, each "faction" has their own agenda.

So, I think portraying Saruman as this man who comes to Gandalf and says..."Hey, together we can beat Sauron and we can use this Ring to restore Order and overthrow Sauron." And of course, Gandalf being the good guy that he is, saying that's all wrong. But, now we see that Middle-earth also has to deal with Saruman, not just as a mimic of Sauron, but someone who's after the Ring himself for his own power. (And we'll see this used later in Boromir/Denethor/Faramir scenese especially TTT EE. Don't see why it not here).

With all that being said, I think the movies did do a good job of establishing the feeling of "something's not right with this other wizard." Even before we meet him we have Gandalf tell Frodo "I must see the head of my order, he is both wise and powerful. Trust me Frodo. He'll no what to do." Lines like that may seem, ok everything's going to be fine, but it's just a use of irony. Just by using "Trust me, Frodo. He'll no what to do." I don't know about you, but I got a sense of, "Umm, he's not going to know what to do," or atleast what the "right" thing to do is.

Then when we get to the actual scene we start having our suspicions reaffirmed. Once we get to the Palantir, and Gandalf touches it, with the flash of "The Eye of Sauron." We then get the history of the Palantiri and that's basically the climax right there, we now are pretty confident Saruman's not a good guy.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Chris Lee is, without a doubt, perfect for the role of Saruman. His appearance, his voice, his commanding demeanor, totally awesome. One of the best-casted parts in a movie that had many great ones.

I too would have liked to have seen Saruman's independence from Sauron. I don't think this would have been too difficult to accomplish, and kudos to Boromir for several great points about that.

I liked the fight scene and loved the accompanying score, which, as critics have negatively pointed out, is reminiscent of John Williams' Duel of the Fates in SWI:PM. All in all, while I would have liked to see some more complexity in Saruman's character, I thought he was done excellently and was very impressed in my first look at him in the movie. Plus, Isengard and Orthanc absolutely rock!

[Lathriel]

I as well like the scenery.
As for the trees that are still standing. If they had already been gone there would have been no tension and it would have been so easy to guess that Saruman was a bad guy. Plus when the orcs tear the trees down later in the movie it makes you mad because you knew of what the Orthanc looked like before.
I didn't expect the wizard fight when I first saw the movie. Somehow I know I wouldn't have lked it if lightbolts would be shot across the room. I guess its because it would remind me of the lazer beams in Star Wars.
Anyway, I'll add more to the discussion later.

[Essex]

Alatar, good point about Saruman being less of a 'traitor' to Sauron in the movie, and not really showing he wants the Ring for himself.

Also, won’t this conflict later with the scene where the Uruks of the White Hand head for Isengard and not Barad-dur?

Exactly. These are the points that I'll make throughout these discussions. Change certain things and you have LOTS of inconsistencies throughout the movie, and it can have a domino effect.

Now to me, these sort of changes to the plot that have not been CORRECTLY thought out are more annoying than BIG 'Changes' that do not make Big Inconsistencies to the rest of the film. For example, Faramir bringing the Hobbits to Osgiliath is one of the biggest 'Changes' that people hate from these movies, but it really doesn't have any knock on effects to the rest of the movies. Whereas the Saruman 'change' does give inconsistencies later when we have his Orcs bring merry and pippin back to isengard instead of straight to Mordor as Alatar mentions above........

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The scenary of Gandalf going into Orthanc was, I think,
one of the best bits in this section. It made clear the later
trashing of the local environment by Saruman and the Ents
resentment of destroying all those trees, etc.

I've always seen Saruman imprisoning Gandalf in a much
more "civilized" manner, with no overt physical action
taken by either, given Saruman's powers vis-a-vis Gandalf
the Grey and Saruman's forces men/orcs/wolves present
in Orthanc.
(A barroom brawl between two maia seems a bit tacky).
An understated hint at force by Saruman would also have
been unsettling for a movie audience, with an implied threat
of torture, with perhaps a reprise of Gollum being tortured
being briefly shown.

I've also thought more could have been used of the voice of
Saruman influencing people, given Christopher Lee's great
voice.

[Essex]

Follows a list of the main differences, and why I believe they were done or were a mistake -

Gandalf telling Saruman that he's found the Ring.

In the book I think it works better that Saruman insinuates he knows Gandalf has found the Ring, and that Gandalf, in seing Saruman's mind, will not tell him so.

Saruman says:

For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?

and then Gandalf replies once he knows Saruman's intentions:

But I would not give it, nay, I would not give even news of it to you, now that I learn your mind

I think the reason why we can have it this way in the film is 'ok' because:

1/ the movie goers do not know the history between gandalf and saruman, and gandalf's growing mistrust of the head of the council (ie stuff read from unfinished tales, etc)

2/ Frodo hsa already left the Shire, so is 'safer' from Saruman going after him to capture him.

Not that it's better. I prefer the book version.

What I DO like though is the way the scriptwriters take mounds of narration from different sources and enclose it in one quick bit of speech from saruman ( who actaully states none of this in the book - but it works really well on film)

Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A great eye, lidless, wreathed in flame

These lines (or at least the Key words) were paraphrased from:

Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age
FOTR, The Breaking of the Fellowship
FOTR, The Council of Elrond
TTT, The Passage of the Marshes
ROTK, The Battle of the Pelennor Fields
Silmarillion, AKALLABÊTH The Downfall of Númenor

Saruman showing the Palantir to Gandalf - As we all know Saruman does not show the stone to Gandalf, or tell him he has one in the book. Jackson uses this to show us Saruman's communication with Sauron, which we do not find out in the books until the Two Towers. I don't mind this change, it gives the audience information (again becasue he hasn't got a narrator!) by the characters

And finally, film Saruman:

They crossed the river Isen on Midsummer's eve, disguised as riders in black

- in the 'official' time line of LOTR the Black riders didn't cross the isen until after gandalf escaped - If we had more of a tie in to the books, imagine the scenes with saruman confronting the Witch King at his gates, and then Gandalf escaping as Saruman reaches the top of Orthanc (as told in unfinished tales, isn't it?) - of course this would mean a big change to the timeline of events prior to this scene.......ah well, can't have everything.

My 3 season mini series of Lord of the Rings will have all this back story in it once it gets made!!!

[Lathriel]

I like the Palanitir and I get very annoyed when people call it "that bowling ball"!
They obviously don't know the power of the Plantir and I think the movies should have explained them a bit more because some of the non-book readers got very confused on this point.
All Gandalf says in this scene is that "They are not all accounted for, the lost seeing stones." and that's it. The first time I saw the movie the line left me hanging because I was expecting some follo up information.
I had also imagined that Saruman would imprison Gandalf normally, minus the fight. They could have used that time wasted on the fight to explain some other things about ME. (just a suggestion)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

What I DO like though is the way the scriptwriters take mounds of narration from different sources and enclose it in one quick bit of speech from saruman ( who actaully states none of this in the book - but it works really well on film).

I was just hoping to hear the 'speech long practiced' by Saruman as he tried to convince Gandalf to join up - hey, this is the EE version, and so we could have had some dialogue. Plus the thought about only one hand wearing the Ring would have been great. The audience could have been led to think that Saruman was being nice, then WHAM! Gandalf pokes a pin in the bubble and lets us see Saruman's real game. It could have been another demonstration of desire for the Ring making one loco.

With such a great voice, it was a shame to see what Christopher Lee's Saruman did say.

My 3 season mini series of Lord of the Rings will have all this back story in it once it gets made!!!

Avidly awaiting its release!

[Lush]

While we're on the topic of Saruman's voice,

I have great admiration for the sound technicians who worked on this film. Saruman's opening lines sound so eerie, and yet, at the same time, so voluptuous, almost sensual in their power. The depth and range give him so much charisma, he sounds practically hyptonic. This, in turn, explains to me why Gandalf would act so deferential, even goofy, around his old friend. This Saruman has got gravitas!

[davem]

Presenting Saruman as merely a servant of Sauron works against one of Tolkien's central themes - evil is 'fragmentary': it is a consequence of the fracturing/fragmenting of the Good. Light is the ultimate symbol of Good in
Tolkien's world. The single light/Secret Fire is One in the beginning, but breaks up over time due to the actions of those who, wittingly or unwittingly serve evil: Morgoth throws down the Lamps of the Valar which shine out with a single, unbroken Light over Middle-earth. This 'broken' Light then takes the form of the Two Trees - a 'dual' light, Golden & Silver, which fluctuates. After the death of the Trees the Light is further fragmentered ('Splintered' in Flieger's words) into the Silmarils & the Sun & Moon. So, the Light not only diminishes towards darkness it also becomes broken up - indeed it is this very breaking up of the Light which causes it to diminish. So, Evil is broken or shattered Good. As Tolkien stated: 'Evil is fissiparous, but it cannot create.' (ie it can multply by breaking itself up into smaller bits, but not create more of itself)

This means that (in Tolkien's world at least) evil is not, cannot be, a unified force opposing Good. Gandalf talks about a traitor betraying himself, etc. We have Saruman's justification of his actions to Gandalf in the book: 'The White Light may be broken' & Gandalf's response: 'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is made of has left the path of wisdom'.

Where Jackson goes against Tolkien in his desire to simplify the story is in showing Saruman & Sauron working as one. In Tolkien's world/philosophy this is impossible, due to the way evil works - if Saruman & Sauron were allied in that way they would be less evil (ie they would be displaying loyalty & providing a mutual support system). We do see the Orcs in Cirith Ungol fighting amongst themselves, but I'm not sure the movie makers got why they did so - in one of the commentary tracks someone says its 'convenient' for Sam that they did. Far from being 'convenient' its actually inevitable that they turn on each other. Sauron has slaves, but clearly the very fact of their being slaves makes them desire to be free - hence more (potential, at least) fragmentation.

Presenting evil as a unified force opposing the Good makes it appear 'equal & opposite' the Good - something Tolkien was at pains to deny. Good is the only thing that truly exists - evil is not its opposite but its breaking up. The conflict is between wholeness & fragmentation, not between one form of wholeness (good) & another form of wholeness (evil).

Oh, and while we're talking about Saruman's voice - try listening to Peter Howell's portrayal of the character in the BBC radio version: amazing!

[Lalwendë]

There is of course the line "a new power is rising" as used in TT (during the glorious Evita-esque balcony sequence), which might also suggest that Saruman does think of himself as offering a third way. Though I think that only someone who has not read the books might be qualified to say whether they 'got' this point or not.

Originally Posted by davem

We do see the Orcs in Cirith Ungol fighting amongst themselves, but I'm not sure the movie makers got why they did so - in one of the commentary tracks someone says its 'convenient' for Sam that they did. Far from being 'convenient' its actually inevitable that they turn on each other. Sauron has slaves, but clearly the very fact of their being slaves makes them desire to be free - hence more (potential, at least) fragmentation.

I'm surprised that they said this on the commentary track. As film-makers I would have thought they would have been aware of one of the 'devices' for the 'evil' side or 'bad guys' in films, and that is to make them look as though they do not trust one another and cannot truly work together effectively. We often see, for example, film gangs turning on one another which then makes it easier for the 'good guys' to save the day. In that respect the battling Orcs do make sense, so this isn't just 'convenient'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Presenting Saruman as merely a servant of Sauron works against one of Tolkien's central themes - evil is 'fragmentary': it is a consequence of the fracturing/fragmenting of the Good. Light is the ultimate symbol of Good in Tolkien's world.

I am not sure that it is fair to criticise Jackson for not adhering to Tolkien's views on the nature of good and evil, or for exploring this particularly thorny aspect of the concept in the film.

The two key questions, for me, when considering Jackson's portrayal of Saruman as Sauron's ally, are as follows:

1. Does it work better in the context of the film?

2. Does it set up any internal inconsistency?

I will answer the second of these first. It has been suggested that there is an inconsistency in that, had Saruman been allied with Sauron, then the Orcs who captured Merry and Pippin would have headed for Mordor rather than Isengard. I would disagree with this. They were captured on the eastern border of Rohan. Isengard was much closer. As far as Saruman and his orcs were concerned, Rohan had been rendered impotent by Saruman's control over Theoden. So it made more sense to take the shorter route and have Saruman deliver the Ring to Sauron by "Nazgul-mail" (As, indeed, Sauron anticipated happening in the book). I therefore don't really see any inconsistency here.

So does it work better in the context of the film? Well, first I should say that I find the "three way" struggle between Sauron, Saruman and the Free Peoples inherently more interesting as a story than a simple two-sided approach. So, all other things being equal, I would prefer Saruman to have been portrayed as a separate party in the struggle, allying with Sauron only where it suited his own ends. But I think that Lalwendë hit the nail on the head:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that they may have done this to simplify Saruman for the audience, who may not have coped with a 'bad guy' proposing a 'third way' suddenly materialising so close to the start of the story; the film focussed on the good/evil divide, and was complex a story enough without troubling poor cinema goers' minds with Saruman's true aims.

Yes, there are films which successfully portray three competing factions. But normally, the different factions (and particularly those controlling them) are well-defined and each play a major role in the film. In the LotR film trilogy, we have Sauron set up as the main villain at the outset. Yet, apart from the initial skirmish with the Black Riders and the odd flash of his eye, we see and hear very little of him and his minions until the third film in the trilogy. Saruman is the main villain of the first and second films. Having him as an independent agent would have detracted from the force of Sauron as the main enemy. Many cinema-goers would, I think, have been wondering what all the fuss about Sauron was when Saruman was the one causing the main characters all the trouble. Setting Saruman up as an ally of Sauron completely avoids this difficulty.

So, much as I love the concept of Saruman as a separate and distinct force (which works fine in the books, as we don't meet Saruman until he is all but defeated) I do think that they made the right choice for the films here.

And, in any event, those of us who know and love the book story can always imagine Saruman as being a deceitful ally of Sauron, pursuing his own ends, if we wish. There is little, if anything, in the films which actively precludes such an interpretation.

One further point for now:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In the books we do not actually meet Saruman until the Ents have destroyed Isengard. All we know of him is what others tell us about him. This is one of those instances where we did have to 'see' scenes which we do not personally 'see' in the books. What does everyone else think of this?

Originally Posted by mormegil

This definately works on film, if it were simply dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf or Elrond and Gandalf it would be rather boring and uneventful.

I agree with Morm that conveying these scenes through dialogue would not have worked at all on film. But Gandalf's encounter with Saruman could have been portrayed through flashback at the Council of Elrond. We would have the same scenes, but later on. How do people think that this might have worked? On the one hand, the question of what had happened to Gandalf might have contributed towards the suspense. On the other, it would have rendered the Council of Elrond overlong and slightly unbalanced, with Gandalf's "flashback" contribution eclipsing what others had to say. My guess is that, without Frodo delaying the start of his journey in the hope that Gandalf would return, the tension would not be increased significantly. But some play might have been made of Gandalf promising to meet with them in Bree and then not turning up as promised.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So, much as I love the concept of Saruman as a separate and distinct force (which works fine in the books, as we don't meet Saruman until he is all but defeated) I do think that they made the right choice for the films here.

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

We come back to the Boethian/Manichean dichotomy - is evil an externally existing 'force'/state in its own right, or is it a perversion of Good, an absence, a corruption of something else. Jackson presents it as the former. This has a profound knock on effect across the whole of the movie. If evil is an equal & opposite force to Good then it is a necessary (if unpleasant) part of the natural order, & its defeat leaves nature unbalanced (albeit a 'nicer' place to be).

The effect of the Ring is to fragment, break up, the good in an individual, make them firstly turn against, then seek to dominate, others. It isolates them, breaking all bonds of love, fellowship & simple humanity/compassion. Once one becomes 'possessed' by the Ring (either by claiming it or simply becoming possessed by the idea/desire of it) one would be incapable of 'serving' another or working with them - everyone else would be percieved either as a threat if they were powerful enough to take it from you, or as an actual or potential slave. This aspect of the Ring's power does come through in the movie, but it is contradicted by Saruman's apparently willing submission to Sauron. What we repeatedly see is Saruman making sacrifices for Sauron & willing his victory. In Tolkien's world this would be impossible due to the effect, the idea of, the Ring on Saruman. He would not have been able to even contemplate the idea of Sauron regaining the Ring without being overwhelmed by fear & horror. With the Ring one is everything, without it one is nothing. We can see that plainly in Frodo after its destruction.

What Jackson has done is not merely simplify Tolkien's complex political power struggle, but twist out of all recognition his moral-philosophical position. In doing so he presents us with a different concept of 'evil'. Evil, in Jackson's Middle-earth, is an external force which has to be beaten, not an inner pull towards fragmentation/domination of others. To claim the Ring is to become Sauron, & to claim it is a moral choice. The enemy is not a unified force in the book, its individual 'members' are in constant conflict with each other because that's their nature.

[Holbytlass]

I concur that seeing the landscape before the destruction is vital. I like the subtle visual clue when the camera is directly overhead Gandalf riding, passed the front gate, into the sharp angle made by the two trails and then repeated by the two sides of Orthanc making a sharp angle again as if saying something is closing in on him.

Even though it seems odd, afterall, how often do we see or hear of two old men beating the pants (or robe) off each other, it makes sense for Gandalf's capture to happen that way. I don't see Gandalf being taken down by a bunch of orcs (that would be inconsistent to his fighting all those orcs later in Moria), he could've easily blasted them like he did in the cave in The Hobbit. It would take someone/thing as powerful as himself to potentially take him down.

The rotating on the ear was weird. I suppose there had to be something visual to say that he was completely under Sarauman's control but the ear?!

It didn't really matter to me whether it was shown as Saruman being Sauron's lackey or a second evil person, I don't think there was enough to show what caused Saruman's fall from grace. He had been established as "wise and powerful", "head of the order" that Gandalf belonged to and since Gandalf is shown to be good and powerful and helpful, that would make Saruman more so, being the one in charge, so to speak.

On a side note, I do like how Saruman, like Bilbo, is a piler not a filer, eccentric and/or evil trait? Wonder what Sauron's study looks like? And what does that make me?!

[Boromir88]

So, much as I love the concept of Saruman as a separate and distinct force (which works fine in the books, as we don't meet Saruman until he is all but defeated) I do think that they made the right choice for the films here.~SpM

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I personally don't think it would be too confusing to establish Saruman as a seperate threat to Sauron. (Eventhough Elrond does say something like "we cannot contend with Isengard and Mordor...etc) he's still the puppet of Sauron in the movies..."What orders from Mordor, my lord? What does the eye Command?" Yes, Saruman is another threat to Middle-earth, but he's not seperate one on his own.

As I've already stated it undermines Saruman's own character. It's been done in movies before, so the concept shouldn't be too confusing if seen. As I mentioned Braveheart, but there's also movies like Star Wars, where we have the Republic (future Galactic Empire) facing the Seperatists, and the Jedi Council is stuck in the middle...what the heck do we do?

Eventhough we know in the books that Sauron is fully aware of what Saruman is up to and only using him to suit his own purposes, in Saruman's own mind he can undermine and defeat Sauron if he gets a hold of the Ring. This shouldn't be too complicated to establish in the movies. Instead of saying "We must join with Sauron," he could say "Join me Gandalf, and together we can defeat Sauron and restore Order back to Middle-earth, and we can rule them like we should." (Maybe something less corny but that's basically what Saruman's own intentions were, is to rule Middle-earth himself.

Also, it's something that the movie hasn't already tackled, as we see with Boromir, and later with Denethor the idea of using the ring to overthrow Sauron. And we even have Boromir in the books say..."Is Saruman not right in using Sauron's own weapon against him" (something like that). So, it's not like this idea of Saruman wanting the Ring for himself to rule would all of a sudden get people flabberghasted and confused, it would actually be something that would be expected..."Hey why not get the Ring to me so I can defeat Sauron." Then Gandalf of course being the good guy would explain to Saruman it's all wrong and we have the wizard fight.

Again, this isn't something that would be overly-complicated to do, it's actually a fairly common thing in movies to establish sort of this third party/extra, yet seperate hurdle for the good guys to get over.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Eventhough we know in the books that Sauron is fully aware of what Saruman is up to and only using him to suit his own purposes, in Saruman's own mind he can undermine and defeat Sauron if he gets a hold of the Ring. This shouldn't be too complicated to establish in the movies. Instead of saying "We must join with Sauron," he could say "Join me Gandalf, and together we can defeat Sauron and restore Order back to Middle-earth, and we can rule them like we should." (Maybe something less corny but that's basically what Saruman's own intentions were, is to rule Middle-earth himself.

Was that really his view? Or is this really a pipe dream he has? For what he actually says is:

'And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper! " he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you. before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.

bide our time, control it? you really think saruman thinks he could control Sauron once he had the Ring back?

or could it be a way of forcing Gandalf to follow him? tell him to join with sauron and they could then bend him to their will, when he might not really think this himself? or is Saruam nvain enugh to actually believe this?

so I'm not sure HOW far away the film actually is - he still gives gandalf 'one choice' - to 'join' with sauron...... (ok perhaps 'must' is too strong.....)

[Mister Underhill]

Real life has been kicking my butt for the past week, so I've been on the sidelines for this excellent thread. I'll just try to chip in a few quick points:

I agree that Saruman as a free agent rather than a Sauron lackey is both preferable story-wise and could have been pulled off without undue confusion.

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it. If audiences are confused by a sequence or a concept or an idea, is it the fault of the audience, or the fault of filmmakers who didn't do a good enough job of telling their story? Now certainly there are times when a story is too complex for its own good, and indeed there is a fair share of dummies in the movie-ticket-buying demographic... I'm just saying that simplifying is only one solution for a complex structure, and often a clumsy one at that.

But I'm not so sure the filmmakers in this case are even making that argument. According to the commentary track, they feel they've come up with a Saruman who is close to the book. In which case I think this sequence doesn't work as intended, because I think most audiences walk away thinking of Saruman as a stooge of Sauron.

Saruman arguably is the primary "bad guy" of the first film at least, though the threat of Sauron is constantly felt, I think, in the flaming eye flashes and even moreso in the presence of his agents, the Nazgûl. Saruman as a victim of the Ring and its promise of power is a far more interesting character than a Saruman who has either (a) been dominated by too much gazing into the palantir, which I think is at least suggested, or (b) decided to cast his allegiance with the side he perceives as being more powerful and the inevitable victor in the coming war.

I do miss a lot of the verbal sparring from the book scene, which gives way to a sequence which is designed mostly to convey exposition, especially about Sauron's "new look": this is where PJ commits to the idea of embodying Sauron as a giant flaming eyeball atop Barad-dûr. Anyone else see a bit of a contradiction with Saruman saying that "[Sauron] cannot yet take physical form..."?

Originally Posted by SPM

I agree with Morm that conveying these scenes through dialogue would not have worked at all on film. But Gandalf's encounter with Saruman could have been portrayed through flashback at the Council of Elrond. We would have the same scenes, but later on. How do people think that this might have worked?

This is an interesting question which I think goes back at least a little to our early discussions about POV. A less restricted POV is free to roam to Isengard for this scene, but what is gained and what is lost?

I think a flashback version of Gandalf's run-in with Saruman might work in a differently structured Council of Elrond, or even earlier as a scene between Gandalf and Frodo in Rivendell. I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film. Of course flashbacks can have their own drawbacks, though they're used at least once effectively to maintain the integrity of the book's structure: when Gandalf relates the tale of the outcome of his fight with the Balrog.

It might be an interesting exercise to continue our earlier discussion of structuring the films according to a more limited, hobbit-centric POV here, though I unfortunately do not have the time to do it right at the moment.

A couple of other quick thoughts:

Orthanc
Pretty cool overall, but I don't like the way it's all hollow inside for that shot of Gandalf spinning to the top.

Performances
Both actors make the most of their parts, whatever the limitations of the writing might be. I really love McKellan's reaction when he throws the cloth over the palantir. Interestingly, Lee reportedly lobbied for the part of Gandalf, but I think he makes a much better Saruman.

Wizard Fight
The wizard fight doesn't do much for me. Jackson indicates on the commentary that he didn't want to go the traditional route with wizards shooting blue lightning from their fingertips, and says that two old men beating the crap out of each other might be kind of humorous. It doesn't strike me as that, and I wish PJ & team had dug a little deeper for another approach. It's interesting to note that Jackson tends to resort to humor when he's not sure how else to tackle a problem.

On a related note, Saruman's line -- "Your love of the halflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind." -- and Gandalf's abashed reaction never failed to get a laugh the two times I saw the film in a theater.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Essex

Was that really his view? Or is this really a pipe dream he has? For what he actually says is: bide our time, control it? you really think saruman thinks he could control Sauron once he had the Ring back?

or could it be a way of forcing Gandalf to follow him? tell him to join with sauron and they could then bend him to their will, when he might not really think this himself? or is Saruam nvain enugh to actually believe this?

so I'm not sure HOW far away the film actually is - he still gives gandalf 'one choice' - to 'join' with sauron...... (ok perhaps 'must' is too strong.....)

Well, granted, it's pretty close to the book for THIS scene, but that's the only scene in the book that really presents Saruman as being honestly tight with Sauron. In later scenes (check Book III Chapter V "The White Rider" for example), Gandalf makes it clear that Saruman is a traitor not only to the White Council, but to Mordor. I don't think we can make a good argument that Saruman was loyal to Mordor; in fact, I believe this is made yet more explicit in "The Hunt for the Ring" in Unfinished Tales.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But its more complex than that, &, as I said, it goes to the heart of Tolkien's philosophical vision/perspective. Staying faithful to the book is more than a matter of making sure Hobbits are half the size of humans & that Orcs are ugly, Elves beautiful, etc.

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it comes down to whether the concept of Saruman being a seperate, individual threat to the "good guys," or being a puppet/underling of Sauron would be too complicated and confusing, or not.

I don't think that it does come down to that at all. As I tried to explain in my post, it comes down to whether having Saruman, the main villain of the first two films, as an independent agent would have lessened the impact of Sauron as the main enemy overall. I think that it would have done.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I always get a little wary of an argument where filmmakers start shifting the blame onto an audience that -- without sugarcoating it -- is too dumb to get it.

That's not the argument that I am making. I certainly do not think that most viewers would be too dumb to understand the concept of an independent Saruman without getting confused. As Boro points out, it's a fairly straightforward concept that has been deployed to good effect in a number of films. The difference however is that, in those films, we get to see the main protagonists on each side plotting, talking, acting and reacting. We get to see nothing of the kind with regard to Sauron. Jacskon could have chosen to portray him as an active character, but I think that he made the right choice not to do so (and to stay faithful to the book in this regard). However, we do get to see a lot of Saruman (again, a correct choice in my view). To have Saruman as independent would have created an imbalance, in that he occupies most of the screen time (in the first two films) as the directing force of the Free Peoples' enemies, yet the audience was told at the outset that Sauron was the main enemy. The solution to addressing this imbalance was to set Saruman up as a "Sauron substitute" for the first two films.

So it's not about dumbing down the film for poor dumb audiences. It's about the balance of the film trilogy.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I like the way the book builds some mystery about what has happened to Gandalf -- he fails to show in Bree as promised, there are signs of his having been at Weather-top, etc. -- and I wonder if a similar construction might have worked here in the film.

I like this aspect too, and I think that this structure could have worked on screen. But I also believe that the structure which Jackson chose works well. They would create different tensions, but I could not say that one way would necessarily be better than the other in the context of the films. Incidentally, in the book, I think that the structure chosen for the films in this regard would not have worked nearly so well. Not quite sure why, but perhaps the answer lies in that old chestnut, the PoV.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well, Jackson didn't stay faithful to the books. Did he stay faithful to Tolkien's themes? In many respects, yes I think that he did. But I do think that it is a bit much to expect him to adhere faithfully and unwaveringly to Tolkien's philosophical persepective. I really can't see the majority of the audiences for these films coming out of the cinema saying to each other: "Well, the special effects are all very well, but I am not sure that Jackson got it right when it comes to the old Boethian/Manichean dichotomy".
.

I'm going to be jumping far ahead in making this point - I hope you'll bear with me.

I suppose it depends on how important you feel 'Tolkien's philosophical persepective'' is. For myself, I admit, is is central. I may (or may not) agre with it, but I do think it is core to the works. Jackson appears to believe that LotR is basically an action-adventure fantasy, about Elves & Goblins, wizards, & heroes with magic swords, not realising that those things are just the 'hroa' of the story. The fea is missing. I suspect that is maybe why I find the movies visually impressive, but basically 'cold' & uninteresting. I was surprised not to be moved, for example, by Eowyn's desperate defiance of the Witch King (which in the book always moves me to tears). The movie placed all the emphasis on her killing of the WK, with her comment 'I am no man!' reducing the moment to one of silly 'feminist' sneering.

This episode in the book goes to the heart of Tolkien's 'philosophical persepective' on the nature of Good & evil, & is moving specifically because of that. Eowyn stands over her fallen uncle & defies the WK even though she is convinced she is going to die (her declaration 'I will kill you if you touch him!' makes her seem simply stupid - how the hell did she think she would do that, having no knowledge of Glorfindel's prophecy?) In the book she shouts 'I will smite you if you touch him'. Pointless defiance, & she knows it, but she stands there & defies him anyway. Shippey calls this Tolkien's 'theory of courage': doing the right thing even in hopeless situations, because it the right thing to do. There is never any point at which Eowyn realises she will kill the WK - its as much of a shock to her as it is to him!

Evil in Tolkien is a 'void', an absence, a nothingness, which can swallow the individual - open a 'void' within them. It is a temptation towards despair & fragmentation. This is, at the very least interesting, & not something that I have seen explored in mainstream movies. I'm moved by Eowyn's defiance when I read the books, because, at the end she refuses to be broken & swallowed up. She defies the chaos & nothingness that threatens to swallow her & all she loves. In the movie, all I see is a sub-James Bond moment, where the villain is despatched with a snappy wisecrack & bullet to the head, followed by his escape craft blowing up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is, at the very least interesting, & not something that I have seen explored in mainstream movies.

There may well be good reason for that ...

I accept that there are points to be made about the Eowyn/Witch-King scene, when we get to that. But I do feel that expecting Jackson to explore in any detail theories concerning the nature of evil in a film of this nature is expecting rather too much from him. For better or for worse (and I make no comment on that for now), it is just not something that the majority of his intended audience would be expecting from the film.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But I do feel that expecting Jackson to explore in any detail theories concerning the nature of evil in a film of this nature is expecting rather too much from him. For better or for worse (and I make no comment on that for now), it is just not something that the majority of his intended audience would be expecting from the film.

Good thing Tolkien wasn't as obsessed with giving his 'audience' only 'what they expected', then, or we'd just have gotten a sequel to TH: another whimsical children's book, no LotR, no Sil, & no LotR movies either, for that matter.

Still, Tolkien was an artist & followed his muse, Jackson seems to have followed the audience & to have given us very little beyond stereotypically pretty pictures & a deal of gruesome imagery.

Apart from what he lifted (inaccurately for the most part) from Tolkien, did anyone actually learn anything from watching Jackson's adaptation - & before you say that wasn't what the movies were about, could anyone have learnt anything from them - was there anything to learn?

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course Jackson and Tolkien were working with different aims and motives and coming from different directions. I quite willing to accept that. But I don't accept that this invalidates Jackson's acheivement.

Originally Posted by davem

Still, Tolkien was an artist & followed his muse, Jackson seems to have followed the audience & to have given us very little beyond stereotypically pretty pictures & a deal of gruesome imagery.

Jackson is an artist, in his own way. Admittedly a very different type of artist to Tolkien, but an artist nonetheless. And he provided me (and, it would seem, many others) with a great deal of enjoyment. I expected very little else and, thus, was satisfied. Perhaps I am just easily pleased, but I do not regret being so.

[doug*platypus]

My preference would have been to have this scene as a flashback at the Council of Elrond. But I admit, I could quite easily be wrong on this point. The scene of Gandalf's merry ole trip to Isengard fits in well where it is here placed. Although, having said that, Gandalf's escape from Isengard fitted in well as a flashback at Frodo's bedside, so maybe having the whole thing as flashback may have worked out well. At least then we would have had some "where's Gandalf" moments, as we get in the book.

Christopher Lee was superbly cast as Saruman. His demeanour, his voice, his posture brought the character to life as no other actor could have.

Orthanc was different to the picture I had always had in my mind of a smooth, obsidian like monolith which was less designed and more organic. But having said that, it was exactly the same as in my Alan Lee-illustrated LOTR, and that was a great comfort! I thought the park-like atmosphere was a nice touch. Obviously that's just the southern end of Isengard, and the orcs and wolves are hidden away somewhere "round back"! I liked Saruman chiding Gandalf over use of the "Halflings' leaf".

I think that more should have been made of Saruman's own aspirations, his willingness to betray his new master Sauron, should the One come into his possession:

"Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here."

Movie audiences are often smarter than filmmakers give them credit for, and it seems entirely plausible to me that Saruman should have a lust for his own power, rather than a life subservient to Sauron. Think of the Sith Lords from the Star Wars saga. One of the key aspects of them is that one is constantly seeking to overthrow the other. Darth Vader and The Emperor are not simply the evil team. Vader wants to rule the galaxy with Padmé and later Luke, while The Emperor wishes to cast down Vader and take Luke as his young apprentice. And it's entirely plausible... because they are evil!

On to the palantír. Another beautiful and lovingly-crafted prop! I liked the cover that could be thrown over it. Didn't like seeing the Eye of Sauron there. It just gives too much away. Plus everytime we see the Eye, as my theory goes, we get a little more immune to its effectiveness... "oh, it's that flaming eye again. I'm so over that!".

So then we have Saruman gloating over the ride of the Nine, and how they will kill the Ringbearer. Gandalf makes for the exit, but no! Down comes the impregnable door. So he tries another one... that comes down as well. And yet another one... Gandalf, are you starting to see a pattern here? Cotton on, man! Slowed mind, indeed. It should have been obvious from the first door slamming that Saruman intended to keep Gandalf locked up. Just a waste of preciouss screen seconds to show more than one, I believe.

The wizard fight is a bit out of the ordinary, and something of a gamble on PJs part, but in my mind it comes off pretty well. In the book, Gandalf says:

"They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc..."

But can you imagine how that would play out in a movie? Some nasty men and/or orcs turn up to aid Saruman, and Gandalf just meekly goes along with it? I think that moviegoers would have demanded a bit of a fight from the old guy. It seems more logical that Saruman had to defeat Gandalf in battle before imprisoning him. The one thing I didn't like was that Saruman got his filthy hands on Gandalf's staff. Hey, man, that's his staff and a symbol of the authority and mandate he has from the Valar! You can't just swipe it! Where is he going to get another one? There are continuity editors watching, remember... oh, well, maybe not after all. I guess staffs are relatively easy to come across, then. Even in the book, Gandalf the White turns up with a new one (from Lórien?).