Re: [mythsoc] side argument (Hobbit spoiler)
- The appearance of the Necromancer in this film is, I believe, merely to
set up a chuck of the action for the second film. My suspicion is that the
second film will give us two parallel plots: the dwarves crossing Mirkwood
and Gandalf adventure into Dol Goldur in an attempt to rescue Thorin's
father and learn the identity of the Necromancer.
But that's just a guess on my part.
> The Necromancer does appear onscreen, but only in the sense that the Giant
> Eyeball Sauron appears onscreen in the LOTR movies.
> He's just seen as a shadow, but a shadow of a whole body.
> OK, _now_ I'm confused.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rateliff" <sacnoth@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:35 AM
> Subject: [mythsoc] side argument
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 9:07 AM, scribbler@... wrote:
>> However, I notice that Salon's reviewer makes the complaint that Jackson
>> did not give Sauron corporeal form in LOTR, calling this a textual error
>> on Jackson's part. I rather blinked at that, because... hello? Sauron
>> DOESN'T have corporeal form by then. Just a condensed localized
>> (Sorry for the side argument.)
> Actually, we do have evidence that Sauron has taken physical form: Gollum
> tells us he has only four fingers on one hand.
> To extend the side-argument a little:
> A big question for me will be whether The Necromancer makes it on-screen
> any point in the three HOBBIT movies. Hope not. Tolkien got roundly
> criticized by Edmund Wilson for not bringing Sauron on-stage in LotR (what
> with him being the title character and all), but having seen many a
> story or series that did make the big reveal at the end,* I think JRRT
> *most bathetically in the third Thomas Covenant book, where they laugh the
> Dark Lord into nonexistence, and most effectively in Ruth Nichol's A Walk
> Out of the World, where the Dark Lord turns out to be surprisingly human.