Saruman's fireball

[alatar]

Anyone else have a problem where in ROTK EE Saruman shoots a fireball from his staff at Gandalf? Seems that this must be a newly acquired talent for Saruman, as it would have been quite helpful against those marauding Ents hours earlier.

And to think that everyone feared his voice.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Yes, I have a big problem with that because I don't think it is something he should be able to do.

I assume that the fireball is influenced by the many times that Gandalf flings fire in the books. But I always assumed that Gandalf's fire magic was not an inherent power but was derived from his possession of the Elven Ring of Fire.

Plus fire was always Gandalf's schtick so why should Saruman be using it?

As for why Saruman didn't snipe the Ents from the rooftop, Saruman has obviously never played any first person shooters.

[radagastly]

I have two possible explanations that would fit in the world of these movies. When Saruman took Gandalf's first staff, he sucked the power out of it and put it into his own, making Gandalf (its true owner) the only possible target for the fireball. Or: Such outbursts require a certain amount of energy and during the Ent attack on Isengard, he was simply low on power and needed until the scene with Gandalf etc. to recharge. Neither of these explanations makes any sense to me. I choose to believe that P.J. messed up for the sake of showing off a really neat special effect.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Narya! That's the name of the ring that I couldn't remember!

[The Only Real Estel]

I don't think Jackson 'messed up' at all. He most likely knew that the book never mentioned Saruman shooting fireballs (although it also never mentioned that he couldn't, that I remember) but decided to go ahead & have his movie version of Saruman be able to do that. In light of many of Jackson's other changes, this one strikes me as a rather slight & understandable change, as the 'non-book reading' audience would only assume having powers (not just vocal ones) to be a normal trait for a wizard. As for me, I have no real problem with it, I see no reason why it would violate any of Tolkien's set-in-stone writings (feel free to prove me wrong, though) and, as I said before, it seems like a rather minor change to me.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

as I said before, it seems like a rather minor change to me.

Agreed. Compared to some of the PJ changes, this one is in the minor category.

I still think that it is out of character for Saruman. His voice is used to summon a storm and lightning in FOTR, and though he and Gandalf fought with their staffs, he still spoke.

So why did PJ have it in the movie? Obviously it showed that Gandalf was stronger now than Saruman, but I think that it was a poor way of showing it. Weta probably was all for it.

[Boromir88]

This is a rather minor change, but one comment...

as the 'non-book reading' audience would only assume having powers (not just vocal ones) to be a normal trait for a wizard.

The only problem I have with this, is then people asking, why didn't Saruman shoot up the ents, or why didn't Gandalf shoot light rays out of his staff against the orcs? He did it before why not now?

[Lolidir]

that is a good question.

in the book he comes out and starts to talk, use his voice to cast a spell, and if im not mistaken, althoug i might be so feel free to let me know, Theoden is affected by it at first and then over comes it as he did in the movie. so that part is correct. in the book Sarumon sees that he has no power left and retreats into Orthanc and goes on to end everything in the shire. (for those of you who have no idea what i am talking about, its the end of the book RTOK. it good so go read it.) PJ decided not to put that in the movie so he had to show the end of Sarumon some how. he also had to show that he had lost his power over Gandalf. retreating into the tower would have done nothing to help in showing the end of him. by firing the fire ball at Gandalf and him reflecting it or what ever shows the Sarumon no longer had any power over him. and as for how he was shot down that just is how PJ chose to end Sarumon.

as it has been said before this just a minor change.

[The Only Real Estel]

PJ decided not to put that in the movie so he had to show the end of Sarumon some how. he also had to show that he had lost his power over Gandalf. retreating into the tower would have done nothing to help in showing the end of him. by firing the fire ball at Gandalf and him reflecting it or what ever shows the Sarumon no longer had any power over him

True, but it probably would've shown Gandalf's power over Saruman well enough to leave out the fireball & just have Gandalf break his staff.

The only problem I have with this, is then people asking, why didn't Saruman shoot up the ents, or why didn't Gandalf shoot light rays out of his staff against the orcs? He did it before why not now?

Great point. In trying to put myself in the shoes of a person who has just seen the movie without having read the books, I've found that it would be very confusing that Gandalf can fight off Gimli, Legolas, & Aragorn in three seconds, blind Nazgul, etc., but never seems to make much use of such powers once the real fighting starts.

When I watched TTT for the first time, I assumed Saruman did nothing for several reasons: (A) He was taken by suprise (somehow) & caught off guard & (B) The damage was already 98% done by the time he had come out. Now I suppose to add to your question about shooting up the ents, a non-book reader could assume that he did nothing because he didn't have his staff with him when he was out on the balcony.

Of course, going by Jackson's version, he could've blasted all the ents out of spite because they turned his tower into an island--but for some reason he didn't. There are definitly holes that can be found (as usual). I guess I view it as a throw-away seen, but I'm still not greatly bothered by it.

[Encaitare]

I didn't like the fireball, nor did I like how Gandalf is somehow mysteriously impervious to flame -- maybe he built up a fire tolerance from fighting that Balrog? You know, the wingless one?

While I didn't care for that aspect of the scene, I'm not going to dwell on it. I'll just look at Grima instead. Heh. Yay Brad Dourif.

I didn't really mind so much the fireball. What kind of got to me was that I thought the scene was too short. As in the book Saruman should have tried seducing Gandalf. But for plain movie goers, that might have taken a bit too long. What I thought was a little ridiculous was how Gandalf was begging Saruman to know where Sauron was going to strike. When I saw FOTR three years ago, I knew next to nothing about LOTR, and by the end of the movie, even I knew that in ROTK, the final battle would take place in Gondor, whatever that was. And to make matters worse, they even say so in TTT. And isn't it pretty obvious, since Sauron lives right next to Gondor. I mean what's he going to do, sneak hundreds of miles to go attack Dale or something, when the greatest kingdom of Men is right in front of him? In the books I got the impression that Gandalf just wanted to know Sauron's plan for attack, and more importantly when. I'm very sure that Gandalf had known for a very long time that it would be in Minas Tirith. So in the movie it just seems kind out odd that Gandalf has no clue and needs Saurman to tell him. But I really didn't mind the fireball...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think the fireball added confusion to a scene that was going quite well. The films are full of these little effects though, so it was not surprising that they threw in a little magic. I think it is detrimental to the scene and should have been left out.

[Essex]

Estel, re

Of course, going by Jackson's version, he could've blasted all the ents out of spite because they turned his tower into an island--but for some reason he didn't. There are definitly holes that can be found (as usual).

This is my main gripe with the Scriptwriters. When we have large (or small) changes from the book we can find plot holes amongst many of them, as your example above shows.

I remember a big discussion on another forum a couple of years back where we were musing what would have happened if, say, Pippin was replaced by Glorfindel in the Fellowship. I was on the 'keep Pippin' side of the debate, and it really showed how TIGHT Tolkien's plot was, and if you start changing anything, it has a domino effect on the rest of the story.

Anyway, I can find no plot holes in the Books. (I'm not talking about Deus ex Machina by the way, so don't mention the eagles!) Has anyone found any plot holes at all in the books?

[Lolidir]

one thing that hs to be made clear, and it is in many other discussions so i wont say to much about it.

in the books Tolkien doesnt use magic that way other writers do like Harry Potter for example. Tolkien's magic is more of a person's power over nature and its more suttle. like Sarumon using words to cast spells, or Galadriel being able to tel future and talk to people. its more suttle things like that. Tolkien doesnt do things like some one causing a big explosion and killing a massive amount of people. but as i said that is covered in other threads so go look into those.

one thing you have to remember is that the people did what they wanted to with the movie, and the movies are almost never as good as the books. you can always find something to pick about. they might have put it in there just to make you complain or to make you think or maybe they did it because they thougth that it would be cool

[Rose Cotton]

in the books Tolkien doesnt use magic that way other writers do like Harry Potter for example. Tolkien's magic is more of a person's power over nature and its more suttle. like Sarumon using words to cast spells, or Galadriel being able to tel future and talk to people. its more suttle things like that. Tolkien doesnt do things like some one causing a big explosion and killing a massive amount of people. but as i said that is covered in other threads so go look into those.

That is a good point. When I saw the fireball it didn't bother me because it was a deviation from the books. There was something else about it that I just couldn't put my finger on. Then I figured it out. I was magic.

In the book magic is often alluded to but it is suble is it is seen at all. And most of it is so enveloped in the world that we don't even think of it as magic anymore.

Ex. Legolas walking on the snow, the ring turning the bearer invisible, talking trees (ents), a flaming eye

I wasn't until I saw that fireball that I realized how much magic was in the movies that I took for granted and never even questioned. The fireball was just such sudden and obvious magic that it was obvious that it was not real.

I'm not saying that it was a bad choice on the part of PJ. It was nessisary to show Gandalf's domination over Saruman to a large audience. However I am saying that it is a bit of magic that does not really fit into Tolkien's world.

[Finwe-89]

I don't have a real problem with it, but like some already said: ''Why didn't he set the Ents in flames?!'' That's something I don't understand, and it's not that his power has become weaker. Because he can shoot Gandalf with his flames, so why not the Ents? Ok, Gandalf survived the fireball, because Gandalf is stronger and Saruman has become weaker, but not that weak! He could easly shoot the Ents.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Rose, I would only call one of those examples magic: the invisibility, and that's only because it originated in The Hobbit, a book for children and full of classic magic.

Flaming eyeball? Didn't happen. Walking on snow? Mere skill. Ents? A different race, is all.

I think non-book readers take this as magic for granted, just because it's different and involves a little imagination.

And I don't know why I'm bothering to be picky with you because I basically agree with your point!

[Lolidir]

Originally Posted by radagastly

Or: Such outbursts require a certain amount of energy and during the Ent attack on Isengard, he was simply low on power and needed until the scene with Gandalf etc. to recharge. Neither of these explanations makes any sense to me. I choose to believe that P.J. messed up for the sake of showing off a really neat special effect.

if Sarumon were to shoot fireballs i am sure it would take a considerable amount of energy. even if it didnt take that much there were a lot of ents to shoot and just one fireball wouldnt stop them. and once the river was unblocked the fire would be basically useless. this is concerning the movie since he didnt do it in the books.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

In what way would shooting a fireball use up energy? Where is the relation? If he skipped breakfast that day would it mean that he can only shoot one fireball?

[Lolidir]

everything takes energy. can you do stuff without eating or sleeping to replenish your energy? i dont think so. like i said it might not take a lot but the number of ents and the number of fireballs it would take to finish each one would take a considerable amount.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But it's magic.

[The Only Real Estel]

But it's magic

Although in FotR it talks about Gandalf being 'nearly spent' from his attempts to keep the door shut in the Mines of Moria through spells.

But Saruman might feel no such effects or use as much energy/whatever you want to call it; I suppose we will never know because I don't think any of us here knows the nature of magic. That and no one here knows what PJ was thinking .

[Lolidir]

exactly. that is a great point. i guess we just get so wrapped up in what we think that we forget to realize that we have no idea what they were thinking. so really all these are just ideas and thoughts.

[The Saucepan Man]

I doubt that Jackson and co really thought about it that much. They just wanted a nice effect that (non-book reading) viewers would like and, at the same time, would show that Gandalf's powers were now superior to those of Saruman.

Hey, you could come up with any number of theories. Perhaps the restrictions placed on the Istari prevented them using such powerful magic on "lesser" beings.

Although it seems to me that Saruman would have been hard pressed to take all of the Ents out and, Lolidir pointed out, a fireball would have been practically useless once the Ents undammed the river.

[Lyta_Underhill]

The fireball didn't bother me nearly as much as Legolas shooting Wormtongue did! Totally gratuitous and another instance of weakening the integrity of Legolas to have him perform a stunt...I don't think a fireball is out of character for Saruman, although we can argue he would not have had the proper skill in terms of the ordering of Middle Earth , etc., etc.,....

Cheers!
Lyta

[Essex]

Legolas was trying to save the life of another person. That is a noble cause, not gratuitous, and did not weaken his character IMO.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Legolas was trying to save the life of another person. That is a noble cause, not gratuitous, and did not weaken his character IMO.

I'll have to go back and watch it again, because I could have sworn he launched the arrow when it was already too late!

Cheers!
Lyta

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

I'll have to go back and watch it again, because I could have sworn he launched the arrow when it was already too late!

Thought the same, but am relying on memory. And why would Legolas kill someone who was killing the 'bad guy'? Oh, that's right, because Saruman was just about to tell Gandalf something important, and interrupting the same must have warranted death as Gandalf the Anxious needed some assurance...

It is assumed that Legolas' slaying of Wormtongue was a nod to Wormtongue's death in the Scouring of the Shire, but if so, it's pretty weak. The hobbits in the Shire heard that Wormtongue may have eaten the Chief, and so were hot to shoot someone. But Legolas?

And in regards to Saruman vs the Ents, he could have at least attempted to torch the Ent (or was it Ents?) that was undamming the river.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

And in regards to Saruman vs the Ents, he could have at least attempted to torch the Ent (or was it Ents?) that was undamming the river.

It is many years since I last played Dungeons and Dragons but, if my memory serves, I don't believe that the fireball spell has sufficient range.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It is many years since I last played Dungeons and Dragons but, if my memory serves, I don't believe that the fireball spell has sufficient range.

[geek on]

text from fireball from newest version of D&D (important part bolded)

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

So if we assume that Saruman is high level (maybe 17th) you have a range of 400 * (40*17) ft. ( 1080 ft.) Not bad, apparently PJ didn't do his research!!!!


[geek off]

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It is many years since I last played Dungeons and Dragons but, if my memory serves, I don't believe that the fireball spell has sufficient range.

LOL - that's pretty funny. Played the same way way back in the day. Surely someone is geeked out enough to have run the calculation.

And it was from his staff, which shortens the distance at least a few feet.

And wasn't this the same Saruman who caused snow many miles away (he was at it again this weekend), then even caused a lightening bolt to hit Caradhras?

Which raises the next question - if Saruman could do all of the above, couldn't he have hampered Gandalf's escape via the Eagle?

Note that I'm not that serious about all of this - it's not like it's 'Gandalf losing to Witch-King' important...

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Originally Posted by alatar

LOL - that's pretty funny. Played the same way way back in the day. Surely someone is geeked out enough to have run the calculation.

Ich bin der Ubergeek

[Lyta_Underhill]

Ich bin der Ubergeek

This also explains a lot..."Ubergeek" is a male noun auf Deutsch... I think the reason I never played D & D had much to do with the fact that it seemed too mathematical and not intuitive enough for my irreverent mind...so the question is not now "could Saruman throw a fireball?" but "how far could he throw this fireball?" And I've noticed this seems to be in keeping with those who wonder if the Balrog can fly without actually proving he has wings first!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I still haven't figured out the diaphanous contribution to the Balrog flight equation, which is justifiable since I don't believe they have wings anyway!

[Essex]

And why would Legolas kill someone who was killing the 'bad guy'?

Just because Saruman was bad or not, if someone is attempting to murder him, then it would be natural for Legolas to try and save him.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

I think the reason I never played D & D had much to do with the fact that it seemed too mathematical and not intuitive enough for my irreverent mind.

Lyta, you played D&D with the wrong people. My buddies weren't so..shall we say...exacting. And math is, well, all math to me, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

P.S. I still haven't figured out the diaphanous contribution to the Balrog flight equation, which is justifiable since I don't believe they have wings anyway!

They have wings, but they're just for show (vestigial?).

Originally Posted by Essex

Just because Saruman was bad or not, if someone is attempting to murder him, then it would be natural for Legolas to try and save him.

Will have to review the scene, but I thought that Saruman was already stabbed, so Legolas wasn't preventing anything but just adding to his total - now if he would have shot Saruman, sending him backwards and saving him from falling...

And didn't Gandalf say something about killing needlessly? I just feel that the Wormtongue 'execution by Elf' wasn't right.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Essex, Legolas was trying to prevent a death count of 1 by intentionally killing Grima and intentionally making the death count 1?

Or am I confusing ethics with logic?

[Essex]

let's think about the 'real' world.

someone has a gun to a person's back, and you (say, as a policeman) can see that they mean to kill the person, no matter what you do. You WOULD fire to stop the person MURDERING the other, yes.

You are both confusing ethics AND logic , because you kill the muderer, hopefully saving the person being attacked.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Lyta, you played D&D with the wrong people. My buddies weren't so..shall we say...exacting. And math is, well, all math to me, so to speak.

Actually, I never played it even once; I just watched it being played and read through a basic manual in 1982, thinking I might like to play it sometime. Interestingly, I didn't read LOTR until 1991!

someone has a gun to a person's back, and you (say, as a policeman) can see that they mean to kill the person, no matter what you do. You WOULD fire to stop the person MURDERING the other, yes.

Certainly; I suppose the real question is "did Legolas shoot for prevention or for retribution?" I haven't had a chance to watch the scene again, but it is a point that alatar made earlier that it might be a nod of sorts to the death of Wormtongue in the Shire, since he was plugged by the archers after he killed Saruman. I guess you could say the Shirelings shot Wormtongue out of retribution for Lotho, but could it be argued that they shot him to prevent him harming Frodo as well? It is a good argument you make, Essex to make me rethink things like this from the book that I didn't consider before.

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Essex

You WOULD fire to stop the person MURDERING the other, yes.

To put in in context, though, isn't the proper question: would you shoot a traitor to prevent him murdering one who had instigated mass murder and attempted to perpetrate genocide?

Either way you are allowing or causing the death of one guilty of heinous crimes.

The way that it comes over to me in the films, though, is that Legolas was attempting to prevent Wormtongue killing Saruman because Saruman might have important information. A worthy cause perhaps, if it could assist Frodo's Quest in any way. But, like Aragorn's decapitation of the Mouth of Sauron, it brings up the issue of whether the end justifies the means. I don't believe that Tolkien would have had such a central character on the side of good behave like that. Hence Wormtongue's death is brought about by an anonymous Hobbit.

Or perhaps Legolas was shooting to wound but even his "Elvish eyes" couldn't be entirely accurate at that range/angle.

[Essex]

Either way you are allowing or causing the death of one guilty of heinous crimes.

Yes, but it is not Legolas's job to 'judge' at this point. It is his job at that moment, instinctively, to try and save a life. Surely one doesn't think of things like a person's 'goodness' in that split second.