# Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - A Travesty & Betrayal?



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 13, 2012)

So I can remember Return of the King being listed as a lot of people's choice for best movie ever.

Yet, among Tolkien fans, it is usually listed as absolute garbage. If Tolkien fans like any of the Trilogy, it's Fellowship, because it seems to stray furthest from the masterpiece it was inspired by.

Having just finished the book Fellowship of the Ring and continuing on my way with the other two books, I have to say the movies sdo seem to fall flat when compared to the novels. A lot of characters are ruined, with common fan complaints being the change of Elrond from sagely and polite to cynical dickhead. 
My major beef is with Saruman. In the films he is presented as nothing more than Sauron's lackey. He is a far more interesting and potent villain in the books. Which reminds me, another reason Tolkien fans loathe Movie ROTK is the complete omission of the Scouring of the Shire.

But what say you? Books or Movies?


----------



## Parallax (Sep 13, 2012)

who cares about the Scouring of the Shire.  Like honestly talk about a low point in the book period it's up there with Tom Bombadil as super cool world building moments that really drag the actual narrative more than most "purists" would like to admit.  I read the series about once a year and I am a huge fan of the films


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 13, 2012)

I loved Tom Bombadil. I've struggled to finish Fellowship many times and I've finally succeeded but throughout all my attempts, I've loved Tom.

The hardest parts were the first chapter and some of the traveling.


----------



## James Bond (Sep 13, 2012)

People who read the books for stuff always expect too much out of movies/TV series and good examples are LOTR/Game of Thrones. I've never read the LOTR books and to be honest I dont want to however I did enjoy the movies and I rate it very highly even though there is a MASSIVE plot hole to the story (why didnt they just fly into Mordor with the big bird and drop the ring from above into the lava?).


----------



## illusion (Sep 13, 2012)

James Bond said:


> People who read the books for stuff always expect too much out of movies/TV series and good examples are LOTR/Game of Thrones. I've never read the LOTR books and to be honest I dont want to however I did enjoy the movies and I rate it very highly even though there is a MASSIVE plot hole to the story (why didnt they just fly into Mordor with the big bird and drop the ring from above into the lava?).



Sauron's eye would've saw it and they would have shot it out of the sky.


----------



## The World (Sep 13, 2012)

James Bond said:


> People who read the books for stuff always expect too much out of movies/TV series and good examples are LOTR/Game of Thrones. I've never read the LOTR books and to be honest I dont want to however I did enjoy the movies and I rate it very highly even though there is a MASSIVE plot hole to the story (why didnt they just fly into Mordor with the big bird and drop the ring from above into the lava?).



Not a massive plot hole at all when you got a giant flaming eye to see everything in the land


----------



## James Bond (Sep 13, 2012)

The World said:


> Not a massive plot hole at all when you got a giant flaming eye to see everything in the land



Send a distraction army to the gates of Mordor and the eye would focus onto them instead of 1/2 birds.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 13, 2012)

People are being moronic, there's nothing wrong with Return of the King. Two Towers possibly, but not Return.


----------



## Bender (Sep 13, 2012)

Good lord enough of this bullshit about Lord Of The Rings not being true to the novel. Who the fuck cares. It's for movie audiences not people who read the story.

EDIT:

Shit, Lord of the rings is the best Fantasy film trilogy ever shown in theaters. Academy Award winnings, A-list actors.

I'm not trying to be rude to ya Zael, it's just that this bugs me as much as ppl pegging HP film series (only difference is that LOTR is a memetic hit).


----------



## Doom85 (Sep 13, 2012)

While it's true that there would a lot of cool elements in the book missing from the movie, I actually think the movie improved a few things.

-Boromir actually had dialogue/moments in the movie that WEREN'T about them going to Gondor instead of Mordor. Seriously, you'd think book Boromir wanted to fuck Gondor or something since it was the only thing he ever talked about
-Bombadil and such were interesting, but killed the suspense of the Nazgul for a while. The movie had no such issue
-Theoden worked better as a character in the movie, I couldn't care about him in the book. I think the actor's solid portrayal helped a lot
-Faramir 100% resisting the Ring in the book felt random, the movie version worked better

Don't get me wrong, I give the books a slight edge, but the movie trilogy is still insanely excellent.

So the biggest complaint "fans" have is regarding Elrond who was never that big a character in the books to begin with? Consider me underwhelmed.

And uh, Saruman was never that impressive in the books either in terms of stuff the movie didn't show. Gandalf curb-stomps him in Two Towers, and his "triumphant plan" in ROTK is to rule over a bunch of defenseless hobbits. Then he gets taken out by a mere mortal. Nothing really impressive there besides what the movies did cover.


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 13, 2012)

I got nothing against the movies apart from what it did to Sauron and Saruman. I may not have read the entire Trilogy yet but I have read The Silmarillion and reducing the brilliant tactician and badass overlord who caused the destruction of Numenor to a glorified spotlight was not to my liking. 
And while I wish they had done more with Saruman, there is no questioning Sir Lee was the best choice for the role. 

I did like the heroes though. Gandalf was great of course but I also liked Frodo and Sam's relationship. And Gollum was probably the best and most interesting character of them all.


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 13, 2012)

Doom85 said:


> And uh, Saruman was never that impressive in the books either in terms of stuff the movie didn't show. Gandalf curb-stomps him in Two Towers, and his "triumphant plan" in ROTK is to rule over a bunch of defenseless hobbits. Then he gets taken out by a mere mortal. Nothing really impressive there besides what the movies did cover.



From what I know, what he did to the Shire was not supposed to be amazing or triumphant. It was the last act of a proud man who had lost everything and was clutching at straws. I do recall reading that his glorious robe of many colours had turned to rags by this point or something.

Saruman's backstory with studying the Rings, with stopping the Council from opposing Sauron, his envy of Gandalf which extended all the way back to before they came to Middle-earth, it established him much more as a character I think. He was never supposed to be a Power like Sauron or Melkor but he so desperately wanted to be and that in itself  is quite fascinating to me.


----------



## Bender (Sep 13, 2012)

Honestly I much more prefer Arwen taking Frodo to Rivendell then Glorfindel. In the book she's more of the stereotypical princess and would be too noxious for people who hate cliches. So thus she was the one who on the Nazgul before Rivendell. Also Tom Bombadil... If you're familiar with Star Wars The Phantom Menace then you'd know how bad a move this is. Critics would slaughter his character and accuse him of dumbing down the film and comparing him to a gnome or etc. Sure we don't find out the origin of Merry and Eowyn's swords but then again meh. And sure we don't see The Witch King shatter Frodo's sword like he did in Weathertop but hey he made up for it in Return of the king.


----------



## Bender (Sep 13, 2012)

@Doom85

Excellent summary. A precise mirror of my exact thoughts.


----------



## Palpatine (Sep 13, 2012)

A lot of hardcore Tolkien fans I know stated that they think the movies did several things _better_ than the books. 

I'm not remembering which aspects they pointed out at the moment though. I have yet to read all 3.


----------



## -Dargor- (Sep 13, 2012)

I don't know what "tokien fans" OP is referring to, but I haven't come across anyone thats read the tolkien books and watched the movies that weren't fine with the trilogy...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 14, 2012)

There are three types of adaptations
1. Decent to good
2. Horrible
3. Not as good as the source material but decent in it's own right

The LOTR movies are the third. As far as fantasy movies go I enjoyed the scenary, costumes, large scale fights, many of the actors and everything else. It does not compare to the books(removing stuff, not giving much focus to some and changing stuff) but it's enjoyable enough. Certain things I felt were for the best in the movies.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Sep 14, 2012)

they are great films, not Kubrick level but great nevertheless.


----------



## illusion (Sep 14, 2012)

James Bond said:


> Send a distraction army to the gates of Mordor and the eye would focus onto them instead of 1/2 birds.



What army? The humans who never got along? Good luck trying to convince them to go on a suicide mission to attack Mordor head on. Maybe Elves? Most of them were already gone or leaving that world, they couldn't amass an army strong enough to cause a distraction. Dwarves? They could care less.

Not to mention, the eye will always focus on the ring, it is a part of him.


----------



## Ebisu's Shades (Sep 14, 2012)

I enjoyed the films very much.  
And I say this when I have read The Simarillion, Lost Tales, The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings... some of which several times.
Yeah there were things in the film that annoyed me and things I thought were better, but overall I thought Jackson got it right.


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 15, 2012)

I must say, The Battle of Helm's Deep in the book leaves much to be desired. There's hardly any tension at all.

It definitely falls far short of the movie version. Although as I recall, it was a lot more significant in the movie so maybe that's the cause of the disparity in quality.


----------



## Suigetsu (Sep 17, 2012)

If those okvies had been made now, then it would had been 6 movies. Knowing the kind of air that WB has this days.
I mean just look at the hobbit, the book is not even a quarter size of the fellowship of the ring and they are making 3 fking movies.

I was quite disappointed as well that they never made the scouring of the shire, fking crap.


----------



## Wan (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to get too many people who agree with the idea that the LotR movies are a "travesty and betrayal".  Are there LotR book fans out there who were maybe underwhelmed by the movies and much prefer the books?  Of course there are.  But the general quality of the movies is such that even if you don't view them as faithful adaptations, you can't really get _mad_ at them.  There was obviously a lot of effort, attention to detail, and (for lack of a better term) heart put into the films.  They stand on their own, and at worst they're an entertaining if not accurate way to see the battles in LotR play out that have been in people's imaginations since the books were written.

Honestly, stuff like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire...they wouldn't have worked in a film.  They are too much of a distraction from the main plot.  I mean, Return of the King had its fair share of criticism for its drawn out ending; would it really have been a good idea to draw that out more?  They worked in the books and they might have worked in a TV series adaptation where you have the time to take those plot detours.  But they wouldn't have worked for a movie.

Now, if you really want a film that's a "travesty and betrayal" of its source material, look no further than The Last Airbender.  Or Dragonball Evolution.


----------



## Bart (Sep 20, 2012)

Ooo hey Zaelapolopollo :3

You cant list it as a neither a travesty or a betrayal ~

It's a very brilliant piece, especially the Fellowship; but liberties had and have to be taken as to film each of those books following the exact narrative and portions would be silly; an example which had to happen, as far as liberties are concerned, was the development of Legolas and Gimli.

If any of you have actually read the books in this thread you'd know what I'm speaking about; or even that massive 20 year gap at the beginning of the book.

Really can't wait to see how Jackson's used the appendices of the ROTK (elements of Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales) into the Hobbit films :WOW


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 20, 2012)

Book Legolas does indeed barely even have a personality. In fact, LOTR Elves are dull as shit. The Silmarillion made them actual characters.
So I can agree the movie helped.

One character who wasn't done justice by the movies though is Denethor. He's a sympathetic figure in the books but almost a cartoon-level cliche obstructive royal idiot in the movie.


----------



## Grape (Sep 20, 2012)

Watch the DVD Bonus Features. 

When you see how much effort was put into the films, you will understand. Especially when you see that the amount of work doubled and then tripled as the series went on.

I'm not a huge fan of the books or movies, but the effort that went into producing both is nothing short of spectacular. Peter Jackson took on Goliath and did a damn fine job of leveling the beast.


----------



## Bart (Sep 20, 2012)

Zaelapolopollo said:


> Book Legolas does indeed barely even have a personality. In fact, LOTR Elves are dull as shit. The Silmarillion made them actual characters.
> So I can agree the movie helped.
> 
> One character who wasn't done justice by the movies though is Denethor. He's a sympathetic figure in the books but almost a cartoon-level cliche obstructive royal idiot in the movie.



Exactly; it helped for their character developments.

Well yeah he is but still he works far better in the film as that's another one of the liberties that can be taken care of, especially when Faramir had so much development.



Grape Krush said:


> Watch the DVD Bonus Features.
> 
> When you see how much effort was put into the films, you will understand. Especially when you see that the amount of work doubled and then tripled as the series went on.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of the books or movies, but the effort that went into producing both is nothing short of spectacular. Peter Jackson took on Goliath and did a damn fine job of leveling the beast.



Exactly this ^^


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 20, 2012)

Really I don't know what they're complaining about, the books are awful. They're slow, they're boring and the only reason anyone picks them up today is their classic status. 



James Bond said:


> People who read the books for stuff always expect too much out of movies/TV series and good examples are LOTR/Game of Thrones. I've never read the LOTR books and to be honest I dont want to however I did enjoy the movies and I rate it very highly even though there is a MASSIVE plot hole to the story (why didnt they just fly into Mordor with the big bird and drop the ring from above into the lava?).


Game of Thrones sticks fairly close to the books. Also Hunger Games does too.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Sep 20, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the only reason anyone picks them up today is their classic status.



Exactly what a big amount of todays youth says about classic music such as The Beatles, Queen and Creedence Clearwater Revival, and classic movies without CGI and crap.

In my country we call comments like that retardation, and it's pretty embarrassing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 20, 2012)

Uncle Acid said:


> Exactly what a big amount of todays youth says about classic music such as The Beatles, Queen and Creedence Clearwater Revival, and classic movies without CGI and crap.
> 
> In my country we call comments like that retardation, and it's pretty embarrassing.


Take whatever pompous, stick up the ass approach you want. But the books were boring, I feel the same about the Game of Thrones books, so it has nothing to do with age. It's just you don't need that much goddamn writing to tell a story. There's obviously room for editing, the thing is filled with Info-dumps and other things that everyone pretty much agrees are huge no-nos now. 

You're not talking to someone who just reads pop-fiction, you're talking to someone who wants to write and the best way to torpedo yourself in the ass is to follow the Tolkien model and spend one hundred pages trying to sell us on travel to the Shire.


----------



## Kuwabara99 (Sep 20, 2012)

Zaelapolopollo said:


> I must say, The Battle of Helm's Deep in the book leaves much to be desired. There's hardly any tension at all.
> 
> It definitely falls far short of the movie version. Although as I recall, it was a lot more significant in the movie so maybe that's the cause of the disparity in quality.



thats the one part I take most exception to movie wise.    Haldir is up in Lothlorien fighting orcs from Dol Guldur instead of being down in Helms Deep.
Eomer is fighting with Gimli and they both escape to the Glittering Caves and Gandalf brings Erkenbrand's group

oh well.  the death of an elf is pointless.   They come back to life again eventually


----------



## Huey Freeman (Sep 20, 2012)

I strictly remember the eagles being neutral is the reason why they didnt fly to Mordor.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Sep 20, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But the books were boring, I feel the same about the Game of Thrones books, so it has nothing to do with age.
> 
> You're not talking to someone who just reads pop-fiction



I didn't mean that it had soemthing to do with age or that you only read pop-fiction. I just meant that just because you find the books slow and boring doesn't mean that the reason others pick them up and read 'em in 2012 is because of their classic status, but because they are actually good, well-written books. Not liking them is a fair thing, just like not liking Uriah Heep is a fair thing, but that doesn't change that we're talking about good handwork here. Wasn't more to it than that.

I'm not much of a reader myself so I haven't read all three of the books, nor have I finished the first Game of Thrones book yet.

If something's regarded as good people will always pick them up, be it books, games, films or music. Having the status as classic just makes even more people hear about them since they'll be more known.


----------



## josh101 (Sep 20, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Game of Thrones sticks fairly close to the books. Also Hunger Games does too.


Game of Thrones stuck fairy close to the books, in the first season. The second season is unrecognisable.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 20, 2012)

josh101 said:


> Game of Thrones stuck fairy close to the books, in the first season. The second season is unrecognisable.


I will admit, I didn't watch the second season. I wasn't super interested in following it. But I stopped reading the second book about 65% of the way through.


----------



## Parallax (Sep 20, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *Take whatever pompous, stick up the ass approach you want. But the books were boring*, I feel the same about the Game of Thrones books, so it has nothing to do with age. It's just you don't need that much goddamn writing to tell a story. There's obviously room for editing, the thing is filled with Info-dumps and other things that everyone pretty much agrees are huge no-nos now.



I have nothing against you not liking the books that's all well and good but lol really you're talking like the books being boring is an objective fact and you're being just as pompous

also people may pick them up because they're classics but they also revisit them because they really enjoy them.  

Calm down man


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 20, 2012)

Parallax said:


> I have nothing against you not liking the books that's all well and good but lol really you're talking like the books being boring is an objective fact and you're being just as pompous
> 
> also people may pick them up because they're classics but they also revisit them because they really enjoy them.
> 
> Calm down man


Cry about it more, the books are boring and if they had been written today they would more than likely never sell in the fashion they're written in. It's not because masterful art is going bad, it's because we've learned not to do some things in writing and these books do a lot of those things a lot. 

People pick them back up for nostalgia's sake.


----------



## Parallax (Sep 20, 2012)

Yes I'm really going to listen to the guy who only reads pop lit .

Like I said I don't care that you like them or not, but don't go acting like you're the arbiter of literature and your stance is the objective final word.


----------



## Gomu Ningen (Sep 21, 2012)

I've always thought, that while good movies, they are not very good adaptations.  There are so many things that are off, but since the movies themselves are good people seem to ignore them.  And I think most people either haven't read the books or it's been so long since they've read them that they don't remember enough.


----------



## Bart (Sep 21, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> I strictly remember the eagles being neutral is the reason why they didnt fly to Mordor.



Exactly ;3

And the barrage of assult that would face them if they even thought of entering Mordor in the first place; they'd be killed instantly.

And the whole neutral thing is one of the reasons why Bombadil didn't take the ring in the Fellowship.


----------



## Yasha (Sep 21, 2012)

Neutrality is not a good enough reason for me. The eagles save the hobbits after all. They are stronger and faster than the Nazgul's winged mounts, the chance of them pulling off the feat is better than the Hobbits. I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere in the book whether the eagles can be affected by the Ring's power. I think Tom Bombadil is the only known character the Ring has no effect on.


----------



## Bart (Sep 21, 2012)

Pudding said:


> Neutrality is not a good enough reason for me. The eagles save the hobbits after all. They are stronger and faster than the Nazgul's winged mounts, the chance of them pulling off the feat is better than the Hobbits. I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere in the book whether the eagles can be affected by the Ring's power. I think Tom Bombadil is the only known character the Ring has no effect on.



The eagles did that, when and only when almost all of Mordor was in turmoil at the time due to what Gollum did; so effectively they faced no resistance whatsoever.

If you saw the resistance that was given to Smaug in the Hobbit from people of Dale who's number doesn't lay a candle to that of Mordor, I might add, you'll know why such a thing regarding the Eagles flying to Mordor was folly.

The only mention, if it can be classed as a mention of the Ring influencing animals (or creatures) was with the Watcher, but thats obviously debatable.

Didn't have any effect on Bombadil, but Tolkien did say that most if not all would fall to the power of the Ring had they gone to the Crack of Doom; I need to re-read that quote of his again.


----------



## Yasha (Sep 21, 2012)

Speaking of the Crack of Doom, since it's the only place in Middle Earth where the Ring can be destroyed, why is there no one guarding it, or better still, why didn't Sauron order to barricade it? I know I would do that, regardless of how small the chance I think it would be of someone invading Mordor and making it alive to the Crack of Doom carrying the Ring.


----------



## Parallax (Sep 21, 2012)

because who cares?  Actually I'm sure there's a reason besides the whole you know Sauron kinda sorta kicks it there 24/7.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Sep 21, 2012)

Pudding said:


> Speaking of the Crack of Doom, since it's the only place in Middle Earth where the Ring can be destroyed, why is there no one guarding it, or better still, why didn't Sauron order to barricade it?


Because you missed the whole point of Sauron's character. The entire plot of the second half of the novel is based around the fact that Sauron couldn't even *conceive* anyone trying to destroy the ring. That's what gave the protagonists so much needed time. They knew that Sauron can only imagine any masters of the Ring using it for power. Using it to fight him. And so he was preparing for the war against it.

That's like knowing your enemies have 100 billion dollars and then barricading and guarding an oven inside your apartment expecting them to come and burn them there.


----------



## Bart (Sep 21, 2012)

Pudding said:


> Speaking of the Crack of Doom, since it's the only place in Middle Earth where the Ring can be destroyed, why is there no one guarding it, or better still, why didn't Sauron order to barricade it? I know I would do that, regardless of how small the chance I think it would be of someone invading Mordor and making it alive to the Crack of Doom carrying the Ring.



Arrogance, simple as; most of the things Sauron has done since his being was controlled by arrogance; which is the reason he never thought someone would want to destroy the Ring, as Gandalf pretty much explains.


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 21, 2012)

No one on Middle-earth really had the willpower to throw the Ring into Mt. Doom. That's probably why Sauron never thought to guard it. The Ring has a power and will all its own and, faced with the fear of destruction, it would surely be able to stop just about anyone from throwing it in there.


----------



## Ebisu's Shades (Sep 21, 2012)

I think by the time Sam and Frodo made it to Mt. Doom, Sauron thought Aragorn had the ring.  He had pretty much emptied the place to have his army go and fight him.


----------



## Bender (Sep 21, 2012)

Pudding said:


> Speaking of the Crack of Doom, since it's the only place in Middle Earth where the Ring can be destroyed, why is there no one guarding it, or better still, why didn't Sauron order to barricade it? I



The reason why Sauron didn't order the place barricaded was the same reason why he lost. Sauron didn't think anyone had the resolve to destroy the ring. In the crack of doom the rings power multiplies several fold and further corrupts the wearer of it. Whether you're wearing it around like a necklace or etc, and don't have it in your pocket its powers can overcome even someone like Frodo. The only reason why Sauron lost at all was because of Gollum still surviving. The ring falling into the fiery pit was pure luck on the hobbits (Frodo and Sam).


----------



## Bender (Sep 21, 2012)

I love the premise of "The One Ring" being basically a soul jar for Sauron. It's such an excellent concept. I really do hope Silmarillion gets a movie adaptation.


----------



## Grape (Sep 21, 2012)

One of my major complaints about the films is how they portrayed or rather _didn't_ portray the Ring's powers. The film basically leads one to believe it's only power is invisibility. I don't remember anyone in it stating it's actual power.

Which ultimately makes the entire quest seem silly.


----------



## Bender (Sep 21, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> One of my major complaints about the films is how they portrayed or rather _didn't_ portray the Ring's powers. The film basically leads one to believe it's only power is invisibility. I don't remember anyone in it stating it's actual power.
> 
> Which ultimately makes the entire quest seem silly.



People who aren't Sauron are only able to use a fraction of it's power.


----------



## Grape (Sep 21, 2012)

I know, but Sam and Frodo accessed other bits of it's power. Sam was able to cast a projection of sorts to scare off orcs :S

Still, it didn't exactly go into any detail about it's potential either. _What_ effects does it give Sauron? etc etc.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 21, 2012)

Sauron's mojo increases 10 fold.


----------



## Bender (Sep 21, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> I know, but Sam and Frodo accessed other bits of it's power. Sam was able to cast a projection of sorts to scare off orcs :S



Ah. Unless you think it was a shadow of sorts in Return of the king Sam did kind of show a projection when going to rescue Frodo.



> Still, it didn't exactly go into any detail about it's potential either. _What_ effects does it give Sauron? etc etc.



It enabled Sauron to survive the collapse the continent of Numenor. Ya know, LOTR version of Atlantis.


----------



## Grape (Sep 21, 2012)

But it didn't show that in the film. People with no previous knowledge of the story go in and see this epic story based around an invisibility ring. They don't see Sauron without the Ring which would give some type of basis to the Ring's actual capability.


----------



## Bender (Sep 21, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> But it didn't show that in the film. People with no previous knowledge of the story go in and see this epic story based around an invisibility ring.





> They don't see Sauron without the Ring which would give some type of basis to the Ring's actual capability.




Wait nevermind. The ring didn't play a role in Sauron surviving the fall of Numenor. It was Sauron himself. Since he's a Maiar he has a great deal of power.

Here's a list of the powers of the One Ring



> The Ring's primary power was control a over the other rings, including "mastery over [their] powers" and domination of the wills of their users. By extension, the Ring also conferred the power to dominate the wills of other beings whether they were wearing Rings or not. However, this is its least accessible power, since it granted this ability in proportion to the user's natural capacity. In the same way, it amplified any inherent power its owner possessed. Finally, it at times gives its bearer (though those with more total control over the Ring's powers might be able to summon this power at will) the visage of a being great, terrible, that inspires utter fear in enemies who view it. Even though the Ring could not grant the wielder the physical power to control or destroy beings greater than Sauron, such as the Valar (although his powers rivaled theirs because of the Ring), it could be a very useful tool for domination of the mortal world.
> 
> A mortal wearing the Ring was made effectively invisible except to those able to perceive the non-physical world, with only a thin, shaky shadow discernible in the brightest sunlight. Whether immortals would be made invisible by it is unknown. The only direct example given is Tom Bombadil, who was anomalous in other ways. The Ring would also extend a mortal possessor's life indefinitely by preventing natural aging. Gandalf explains that it does not "grant new life", but that the possessor merely "continues" until life becomes unbearably wearisome. However, the Ring could not protect its bearer from immediate death or destruction; Gollum perished in the Crack of Doom while in possession of the Ring, and even Sauron himself (as the only one who could truly control the full power of the Ring) could not preserve his original body from destruction during the downfall of N?menor. Likewise, the Ring could not protect its bearer from physical harm; Frodo (while bearing the Ring) was seriously injured by the Witch King on Weathertop. In the same way, Frodo and Sauron each lost a finger while actually wearing the ring. Like the Nine Rings, the One Ring also has the effect of physically corrupting mortals who wore it for extended periods of time, eventually transforming them into wraiths. Hobbits prove to be somewhat resistant to this process, as proved by Gollum.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaelapolopollo (Sep 21, 2012)

Grape Krush has a good point. As I was once one of the ignorant movie-onlyers, I thought the Ring seemed pretty lame.
I also thought Sauron was a big eyeball.


----------



## Rukia (Sep 21, 2012)

I don't like the movies.  But the books suck.  So I think this is a pretty good adaptation.  Peter Jackson turned those trainwrecks into an extremely profitable trilogy.  And he was able to get films like King Kong and The Lovely Bones made as a result.  Good for him.


----------



## Bender (Sep 22, 2012)

Zaelapolopollo said:


> Grape Krush has a good point. As I was once one of the ignorant movie-onlyers, I thought the Ring seemed pretty lame.
> I also thought Sauron was a big eyeball.




Ignorant! 

Seriously, I wish people would stop thinking he's an  eyeball. I mean bloody sake the eyeball was a symbol of Sauron's will.


----------



## Bart (Sep 22, 2012)

Bender's finally posted :WOW


----------

