Fall of Barad-dur movie stuffs

[Top_Gun]

This kinda got a bit off-topic in the NPCs thread before it was closed, but I wanted to follow up on what I said here for @Jetfire301 and @333478 . As Tolkien originally described it, the Fall of Barad-dur was this crazy-awesome spectacle. The Towers of the Teeth crumbled and fell, the dark veil normally surrounding Barad-dur cleared away, the Tower itself crumbled and fell, and Orodruin belched fire and ash as a backdrop. Above all else, there appears this massive humanoid form of pure shadow, reaching its arm out towards the armies of the West, one last impotent gasp by Sauron before the image is blown away by the wind. (The same thing happens when Saruman dies, albeit on a far smaller scale.) There's this one painting by John Howe or Ted Nasmith (or maybe one from each; I've owned a few of those calendars over the years) that always stuck out in my mind as perfectly capturing that moment, and I really wanted to see it captured in all of its apocalyptic glory on-screen.

But what did the film give us instead? That goofy, derpy, never-should-have-been-there-anyway giant flaming eye, doing this ridiculous glancing-around "OHCRAPOHCRAPOHCRAP" thing. And then it fizzles out, and there's this random *FOOM* shockwave...and that's it. No vast figure of shadow stretching out in its death throes, backlit by the fires of Mount Doom. Just an exploding eyeball. As many changes as Jackson made for the films, for better or worse, I pretty much always felt like he absolutely nailed the visual aspect of things. This was the one glaring exception, though, and I'm still disappointed that I'll never get the chance to see that true vision of Sauron's fall in the theater.

 

[Glov]

Dis one?

 

[Top_Gun]

Yes, that's it exactly! Tell me that wouldn't have been amazing in the film.

 

[TheSpeedy_]

~snip~

This is an artists interpretation of the end of Saruon, while I think this is a wonderful representation in which it envokes the sense of defeat, I do not think that this, in and of itself, is a suitable representation for a film. In fact, I'll have to look up the lore behind Saruon's defeat, but painting and film are two separate visual mediums. Painting are still frames which an artist must use implied context to evoke the scene, a director uses many frames, characters, and visual aspects. I like this painting, but I do not see how in a moving, visual representation, that it could be realized in a believable means, especially using technology from 2003. I too, would not like to see any touch ups done to the movies, seeing as how George Lucas did with Start Wars. (Han shot first)

 

[FireFuss]

The painting is nice, and it does bring back memories of reading the fall in the book. I remember picturing it as the smoke and ash created from the collapsing tower of Barad Dur turned into the shape of Sauron and was then blown away by the wind. I honestly havent read the book recently enough to remember, but coming from an apparent lore dork I'll just believe you that it was a shadow. It just goes to show how many different people can interpret the same writings differently. I for one liked the movie version, however "lorely incorrect" it was. I thought the falling tower blown to bits by "Saurons defeat" or whatever caused it was a neat little effect. Youre like "ooh, the tower is falling ove...BOOM....WTF was THAT!?"

Anywho,

 

[Portalrules333]

For me, personally, I loved the way the movie showed it. The ground collapsing under the orcs was unrealistic, but cool. I think PJ really did the best he could for this scene, and it satisfied me. However, I do agree with PD that I would have loved to see the book's version of it. I mean, a huge shadow of Sauron, that even could be seen by Faramir and Eowyn in Minas Tirith? Awesomeness! I would say that in the movies, aside from slightly more fire and smoke from Mordor, the people in the White City probably didn't even know that Sauron was brought down till a messenger or eagle came from the battle scene. In the book, even before the eagle told them the good news, everyone was feeling joyful after having seen the shadow blown away. Basically, I agree with PD on which is better, but I think that the movies also did it well enough for my liking.

 

[JordD04]

This is an artists interpretation of the end of Saruon, while I think this is a wonderful representation in which it envokes the sense of defeat, I do not think that this, in and of itself, is a suitable representation for a film. In fact, I'll have to look up the lore behind Saruon's defeat, but painting and film are two separate visual mediums. Painting are still frames which an artist must use implied context to evoke the scene, a director uses many frames, characters, and visual aspects. I like this painting, but I do not see how in a moving, visual representation, that it could be realized in a believable means, especially using technology from 2003. I too, would not like to see any touch ups done to the movies, seeing as how George Lucas did with Start Wars. (Han shot first)

Ted Nasmith tends to be pretty good on lore accuracy.

 

[TheSpeedy_]

Ted Nasmith tends to be pretty good on lore accuracy.

Yes, I agree. I meant in reading how Tolkien wrote it, in such means as to estimate how it could have been created in jackson's trilogy