|
On January 06 2013 09:55 darthfoley wrote:
In the hobbit is there any mention of the land of Rhun? I always wanted to know more about the Easterners after Minis Tirith (the guys with the oliphants and shit) but it wasn't deeply covered in the movies.
If your interested in learning more about the Fallen men you could look into the material that Games workshop have produced. You don't even have to look at the model side of the franchise just the source books.
Just a thought 
|
I read the books before they started working on the movies. I knew that Hollywood adaptations are always, well a certain way.
When I first saw the movies I thought they were okish and acceptable.
But now that I am rereading the books (audiobook while cycling), I realize that nothing of the soul of the books is in the movies. I see now in that article that his son feels exactly that way.
|
So... I liked the movie.. but can anyone tell me why in both LOTR and the Hobbit they don't just get on those huge birds from the get go and just flies to their final destination? Just pisses me off. Well of course it would be a boring story 
|
Canada11318 Posts
On January 06 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:
Then why does the destruction of Sauron's ring interfere with the three rings? If they are made independently, even with knowledge from Sauron, they shouldn't stop working. Sauron's will is not in it. And if it is, then they should be a corrupting influence and Gandalf shouldn't be wearing one.
Are you looking for the mechanics behind it? This isn't Sanderson magic.
I'll give you a quote. Fellowship of the Ring, Council of Elrond. Elrond:
"For in that time (Sauron) was not evil to behold, and they received his aid and grew mighty in craft, whereas he learned all their secrets, and betrayed them, and forged secretly in the Mountain of Fire the One Ring to be their master. But Celebrimbor was aware of him, and hid the Three which he had made; and there was war, and the land was laid waste..."
The one Ring was designed for mastery. Designed to control the rings. That was its purpose
Silmarillion
"Now the Elves made many rings; but secretly Sauron made One Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should last. And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency;... And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them.
But the Elves were not so lightly to be caught. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him... Then in anger and fear they took off their rings..."
And then this leads to open war.
While the Ring was lost, Elrond and Galadrial were able to use it to perserve a memory of the ancient days in Rivendell and Lorien while Gandalf used his to further the cause against Sauron. What that also means is once the One is destroyed, the glory of the ancient days in Rivendell and Lorien too fade.
|
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way.
|
On January 06 2013 10:20 Nausea wrote:So... I liked the movie.. but can anyone tell me why in both LOTR and the Hobbit they don't just get on those huge birds from the get go and just flies to their final destination? Just pisses me off. Well of course it would be a boring story
those "birds" are beings like angels. they help the "good folk" in dire situations but they do not do their job for them. gandalf is a similiar being, thats why he doesn't cast aoe one shot spells all the time
|
On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way.
Read. The. Books.
EDIT:
Here is the explanation for the eagles not just flying people everywhere for those who are too lazy to read the books, yet feel they have discovered some profound plothole the inventor of an entire universe, including languages with proper syntax and grammar, neglected to cover:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.leasticoulddo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20130104.gif)
The actual explanation differs a little, but this should get you close enough.
|
On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's that we don't have knowledge on how it works, because unlike other fantasy series, the "magic system" isn't explained.
It's like in our own past, people had no idea how life, nature, etc. worked, so they created myths and legends to try to rationalize them, but they were ussually quite absurd. They had no idea how our universe worked, so even basic laws of physics made no sense for them. They could just see the results of certain interactions.
We don't know the rules of magic in the LotR. We don't know why The Three are connected to Sauron, we can especulate, like by saying that, when teaching the elves how to make rings of power, he inserted a flaw in all of them that would connect them to him but wouldn't give the same amount of control as the rings he made himself. Or we could just say it's magic. Like we used to say when we saw the sun go below the horizon.
Making no sense and not understanding how it works are diferent things. If you think like that, no magic at all in LotR makes sense, we don't know where it comes from and how it works, what are it's powers and limitations.
|
Canada11318 Posts
On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way.
Because the One Ring worked. The Three were made independently and the One trumped the Three to put it crudely. If he had the One and they had the Three, he would have corrupted them. The only reason they weren't corrupted was only because they took them off and hid them away.
But the corrupting part requires an agent on the other end to do the corrupting. Whereas the Nine and Seven need no such help- they were tainted to begin with. So while the One trumps the Three as far as existence, when it isn't being used by someone with the ability, the Three can do what the Three were meant to do.
Once the One comes back into play, they would have to abandon the rings again. But in every scenario, the very creation of the Ring mastered the Three and linked the fate of them to the One. Think of the corrupting as an active effect and the fate as a passive effect of the One Ring over the the Three.
|
On January 06 2013 10:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way. Read. The. Books.
I'll stop arguing. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the type of personality I was complaining about: insulting my intelligence, insisting I should read the book (which I've done) while never explaining why I'm wrong. (you should become a theologian)
Tolkien himself thinks the books are flawed. I love his work, but the Lord of the Rings books have become so huge that you are no longer allowed to criticize them without being accused of blasphemy, which annoys me. If someone dislikes something about the book he is told that he should read obscure letter #13, or he 'doesn't understand the philosophy behind it' or he's dumb or he's accused of having never read the books etc. It annoyed me back during the Harry Potter vs LotR fandom wars of a decade ago and it annoys me now.
|
On January 06 2013 10:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:35 Ghostcom wrote:On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way. Read. The. Books. I'll stop arguing. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the type of person I was complaining about: insulting my intelligence, insisting I should read the book (which I've done) while never explaining why I'm wrong. Tolkien himself thinks the books are flawed. I love his work, but the Lord of the Rings books have become so huge that you are no longer allowed to criticize them without being accused of blasphemy, which annoys me. If someone dislikes something about the book he is told that he should read obscure letter #13, or he 'doesn't understand the philosophy behind it' or he's dumb or he's accused of having never read the books etc. It annoyed me back during the Harry Potter vs LotR fandom wars of a decade ago and it annoys me now.
You are not asking questions, you are stating that it makes no sense. If all you want is that someone admits it makes no sense, as you said so yourself, you already made up your mind. You clearly aren't just asking a question with an open mind to answers that contradict your conviction.
The books have flaws. Some things in his writing blatantly contradict others, specially in the unpublished material, and the way he wrote The Hobbit creates some issues, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree to everything you believe is a flaw.
|
On January 06 2013 10:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:35 Ghostcom wrote:On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way. Read. The. Books. I'll stop arguing. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the type of person I was complaining about: insulting my intelligence, insisting I should read the book (which I've done) while never explaining why I'm wrong. Tolkien himself thinks the books are flawed. I love his work, but the Lord of the Rings books have become so huge that you are no longer allowed to criticize them without being accused of blasphemy, which annoys me. If someone dislikes something about the book he is told that he should read obscure letter #13, or he 'doesn't understand the philosophy behind it' or he's dumb or he's accused of having never read the books etc. It annoyed me back during the Harry Potter vs LotR fandom wars of a decade ago and it annoys me now.
Thanks for demonstrating someone who argues that 2+2=5.
This has nothing to do with criticizing the works of Tolkien - there is plenty of stuff which is not entirely coherent, nor have I at any point belittled your intellect. I have stated that the questions you pose are answered to a very reasonable degree and that you have yet to actually touch upon something which reading the Silmarillion would not tell you. That you draw above stated conclusions based on that speaks more about you than it does about me.
EDIT:
I will admit to accusing you of having not read the Silmarillion, because if you had you would already know the answers.
|
Canada11318 Posts
On January 06 2013 10:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 10:35 Ghostcom wrote:On January 06 2013 10:31 Grumbels wrote:
I just want someone to say that it makes no sense, that's all.
I can accept that the one, seven and nine rings are all semi-independent sources of evil, because all have been corrupted by Sauron. I can also accept that Sauron made the ring of power for the purpose of controlling the elven rings, which he could do because he understood the principles behind ring creation.
However, I don't see how, simply by explaining the process of ring creation to the elves, the elven rings would be dependent on the ring of power. Either the rings are sustained by Sauron's will as expressed in the one ring - which, mind you, makes no sense, since Sauron had nothing to do with their creation - and then they should be corrupting, or they should not stop working when the one ring is destroyed.
To be honest, I think Tolkien simply wanted to have a touching scene where the splendor of the elvish lands would be lost by continuing with their quest, so that's why he made the mechanics that way. Read. The. Books. Tolkien himself thinks the books are flawed. I love his work, but the Lord of the Rings books have become so huge that you are no longer allowed to criticize them without being accused of blasphemy, which annoys me. If someone dislikes something about the book he is told that he should read obscure letter #13, or he 'doesn't understand the philosophy behind it' or he's dumb or he's accused of having never read the books etc. It annoyed me back during the Harry Potter vs LotR fandom wars of a decade ago and it annoys me now.
It's one thing to take a quote from Tolkien saying his books are flawed (which any author will tell you) and another to throw that behind a specific point as evidence that this specific point is a flaw. It may or may not be. But Tolkien's broad view of his work has little bearing on the specific point you were wanting people to admit there was a fault.
What if Tolkien didn't think the point you are harping on was a flaw? We don't know and I think I have adequately defended what the Ring did based on the information given to us without resorting to crazy fan hypothesis. We don't have perfect information, but that is not the same thing as there being a flaw or a mistake.
|
@Falling
Well, it's not just about this one thing about the elven rings (I still think it makes no sense, but your 'it's unknown magic' interpretation is supported by the text obviously), just the general idea that every time one brings up any possible criticism of Tolkien's work, the reception would be the same. I could have picked any random other point, no matter how valid, and Ghostcom would have shouted at me to read the books.
I think SKC's criticism of my post is correct and I'll admit I phrased it the wrong way, but I think my reasoning does hold and it doesn't interfere with my main point.
|
On January 06 2013 10:59 Grumbels wrote:
@Falling
Well, it's not just about this one thing about the elven rings (I still think it makes no sense, but your 'it's unknown magic' interpretation is supported by the text obviously), just the general idea that every time one brings up any possible criticism of Tolkien's work, the reception would be the same. I could have picked any random other point, no matter how valid, and Ghostcom would have shouted at me to read the books.
No I would not, I only do this when you are trying to make a flaw out of something that is not - as I also explicitly stated above. Nice try though.
|
Canada11318 Posts
It sounds to me, you have a specific idea of what a Tolkien fan is and are arguing based on that assumption.
I will go on the record as to saying I do not think LotR and The Hobbit are flawless. This is especially because Tolkien worked on it for decades and was often re-interpreting older events and as approached it more and more philosophically in his later years you will often find multiple ideas on the same person or subject. (See the ever changing idea of Gandalf or Glorfindel.) But I don't think the specific argument you brought in to prove is an example of a flaw.
But why are you wanting to pick random points in LotR's to present as flaws? Were the books so riddled with flaws that it just jumps out at you? Are you wanting to demonstrate that the LotR's are not flawless?
Because I don't see why it would bother you to be wrong on a certain point unless you were hoping to show an example of a flaw in Tolkien's writings.
But it's more than unknown magic. Tolkien details the effects that One Ring has on the others and remains consistent to it. That's all one really needs on the matter.
Are you familiar with Sanderson's First Law of Magics: An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
Most of LotR's magic is not used to solve conflicts but rather are most often the source of the conflict. Therefore we rarely need the mechanics behind the magic to enjoy the story. Now some people like the more Robert Jordan/ Brandon Sanderson / Harry Potter/ D&D Laws of Physics magic. And others like the more subtle, unexplained magic such as LotR's (and arguably Game of Thrones.)
I came across some of the old Faerie stories like Sir Orfeo, Sir Launfal, Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle and it gave me a new appreciation of stepping into Elf land and how dangerous, magnificient, and strange it is. The distinct Otherness of elflands in Tolkien and their magic is very interesting from that perspective.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 06 2013 08:13 MyXoMoPBL wrote:
I just saw the movie in HFR, can say that I didn't really feel anything special watching it in 3d except that everything feels so dark due to the glasses. Also, was the movie supposed to be a complete rip off from the lotr first movie?
LOTR - BILBO
shire - shire
attacked while traveling - attacked while traveling
rivendell - rivendell
towards the mountains - towards the mountains
fight goblins - fight goblins
get attacked after leaving the cave - get attacked after leaving the cave
was this the whole point?
Um, the books are both that way, it's not just the movie. Both the hobbit and fellowship of the ring start in the shire, go straight to rivendell, go from there towards the misty mountains and cross it. It will get different from this point on, but that's such a simplification of the movie that all I can say is that you can't be serious.
I mean, if you really want to, you can break any movie's story down to one of 2 different basic plots: a protagonist goes on a journey of some kind, or a stranger comes to town. But doing that is pretty pointless and useless.
|
We also have no idea about what happens to the other magic rings that are said to exist but are scarcely mentioned in the books. Perhaps they all became useless after Sauron was finished, because their power came from him or because of an inherited flaw that he passed on when teaching the elves.
|
Canada11318 Posts
Maybe it is more implicit, but I was rather under the impression that the destruction of the One led to the destruction of both Sauron and the Wraiths + their Rings. The Ringwraiths are the end result total corruption and are so tied to Sauron and their fate also seemed tied to the fate of the One Ring.
|
On January 06 2013 11:25 Falling wrote:
Maybe it is more implicit, but I was rather under the impression that the destruction of the One led to the destruction of both Sauron and the Wraiths + their Rings. The Ringwraiths are the end result total corruption and are so tied to Sauron and their fate also seemed tied to the fate of the One Ring.
I meant the small magic rings that are hardly ever talked about, not the main 7+3+9+1.
"Midway through the Second Age he came in disguise as Annatar ("Lord of Gifts") to the Elven smiths of Eregion, who were led by Celebrimbor, and taught them the craft of forging magic rings. Tolkien writes that the Elves made many lesser rings as essays in the craft,[2] but eventually with Sauron's assistance they forged the Seven and the Nine."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
