Okay, for those who have actually seen both the Lord of the Rings movies and the more recent Hobbit films, you will know by now that the Necromancer of Dol Guldur is, in fact, Sauron himself. I only differentiated between them in the title to avoid spoiling things for those who haven't seen the films yet. But yeah, as the title said, I believe that Sauron's portrayal in the recent Hobbit films actually makes him a better antagonist than what he was shown to be in the LOTR films ten years ago.
Firstly, there's the matter of interaction. In the Hobbit films, he actually interacts with people, both on his side and against his enemies. In LOTR his only real interaction with anyone were a few vague lines here and there, including his famous "I see you" moment with Frodo. But in the prequels, he's there, giving orders to his troops, even confronting Gandalf. In LOTR he always let others do his dirty work, so for me, it's great to actually see that he can get his hands (or lack thereof in this case) dirty when it comes to dealing with his enemies. And a villain that actually gets involved with these matters is much more effective than some faraway threat that never seems to do anything but look around and be menacing.
Then there's the matter of scale. In the LOTR, Sauron is most definitely at the height of his power. He has a mountain-sized fortress, seemingly endless armies of orcs and other creatures, and the forces of good are constantly on the defensive, making him seem like an unstoppable force of nature. But in the prequels, he's working on a much smaller scale. His headquarters is smaller, his forces are smaller, and he's not the big omnipotent force he was shown to be in LOTR. Because of this, he's often forced to work in the shadows, outright hiding from his enemies and doing things in a much more cunning way. For whatever reason, this makes him seem like a far deadlier threat to me than the "massive-army-invincible-overlord" threat he posed in the first trilogy.
So yeah, that's my take on the whole thing. Disagree or discuss what I've said if you like. I'd be interested to hear your own views on this.
Firstly, there's the matter of interaction. In the Hobbit films, he actually interacts with people, both on his side and against his enemies. In LOTR his only real interaction with anyone were a few vague lines here and there, including his famous "I see you" moment with Frodo. But in the prequels, he's there, giving orders to his troops, even confronting Gandalf. In LOTR he always let others do his dirty work, so for me, it's great to actually see that he can get his hands (or lack thereof in this case) dirty when it comes to dealing with his enemies. And a villain that actually gets involved with these matters is much more effective than some faraway threat that never seems to do anything but look around and be menacing.
Then there's the matter of scale. In the LOTR, Sauron is most definitely at the height of his power. He has a mountain-sized fortress, seemingly endless armies of orcs and other creatures, and the forces of good are constantly on the defensive, making him seem like an unstoppable force of nature. But in the prequels, he's working on a much smaller scale. His headquarters is smaller, his forces are smaller, and he's not the big omnipotent force he was shown to be in LOTR. Because of this, he's often forced to work in the shadows, outright hiding from his enemies and doing things in a much more cunning way. For whatever reason, this makes him seem like a far deadlier threat to me than the "massive-army-invincible-overlord" threat he posed in the first trilogy.
So yeah, that's my take on the whole thing. Disagree or discuss what I've said if you like. I'd be interested to hear your own views on this.
