Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Gonna nip this one in the bud because it isn't a debate on ambiguity. It's an offhand mistake made by Chairman who assumed the 'Lord' is referring to the One Ring. It is not. The series title refers to Sauron.

That doesn't really refute any argument about the One Ring also being a Lord. It merely states that Sauron had the title as well which wasn't something I think anyone was refuting. The original title of the book was "The Magic Ring" which could lend weight to the argument of the ring being the Lord referenced. The ring also contained enough of his power that he was left with nothing once it was destroyed. Which again lends weight to the argument that the true Lord of the Ring was the ring itself.

Like I said I don't believe that to be the case myself but it is something that can be made. Unless there is a quote from Tolkien stating such is is more ambiguous then what the two towers references. As he states what he was referencing and what the text indicates is the reference.

[Recovery]

Just want to throw this out there for you all to feast on...

As someone who never read a single word out of ANY of the tolkien books, Rings of Power, all things considered, is pretty decent. I've been enjoying it because I dont know any of the tolkien lore.

People like me are who this show is created for. People like me watch the show in far greater numbers than die hard tolkien fans or even half-assed tolkien fans.

People like me generate the money. There are more of me.

This can be applied to all of the marvel movies people complain about, the star wars movies people complain about, the wheel of time series, etc. Name a fantasy book thats had a television series or movie adaptation and you can apply this logic to it.

All in all for the rings of power 6/10 maybe 7/10. Actors are kind of stale. Story is good. Pacing is bad.

[Triceron]

That doesn't really refute any argument about the One Ring also being a Lord.

By making the point that Sauron is definitively the only Lord of the Rings I am refuting the idea that there could be any other alternative.

Just like anyone is free to argue that the world is flat, and believe it to their core, it doesn't make it a debate.

Like I said, it's not something to debate. You can say you could argue that Frodo or Gollum or Bilbo is the Lord of the Rings too, but it would be just as wrong because the title isn't referring to any of these characters, even if we take Pippin's dialogue into account.

Like I said I don't believe that to be the case myself but it is something that can be made. Unless there is a quote from Tolkien stating such is is more ambiguous then what the two towers references

It's already explained explicitly in the books by Gandalf literally stating who the Lord of the Rings is very clearly. And if you want to say it's ambiguous, then you need to explain why it is ambiguous, not just say 'Well it could be ambiguous since Tolkien didn't state it wasn't. He explicitly did so through having Gandalf's exposition on who the Lord of the Rings is, and that is the dark lord Sauron.

It is not ambiguous like the Two Towers at all, since there is only one Lord of the Rings and is blatantly and clearly stated in the books.

And even regarding the Two Towers, it's not really a debate since Tolkien himself clarified what he intended to refer to:

Tolkien wrote I am not at all happy about the title The Two Towers. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol. II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading. It's only been in debate because people have taken to their own interpretation of what the Two Towers could be referring to, as well as there being official art that depicts a different set of Towers which adds to the confusion.

People can argue what they personally regard the title refers to, but by no means would I consider it a debate if Tolkien literally clarifies what he was referring to. Like, Han shot First isn't a debate either. Canonically, Greedo shot first. People can still choose to regard Han shot First as being their personal version of how the events played out without it being a debate on the canon itself. So if someone wants to regard the One Ring as being the 'Lord of the Rings' then they can do so personally. It just isn't what the title is actually referring to, and it isn't up for debate.

[rhorle]

By making the point that Sauron is definitively the only Lord of the Rings

Yet you didn't state that. You only provided that Sauron has the title of Lord of the Rings. Nothing about that definitively states that the title only refers to Sauron. It is probable it refers to him but not definitive.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not ambiguous like the Two Towers at all, since there is only one Lord of the Rings and is blatantly and clearly stated in the books.

The Two Towers is not ambigous because Tolkien himself commented on what towers it refers to. This is an example of a definitive answer.

"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading. There is, of course, actually no real connecting link between Books III and IV, when cut off and presented separately as a volume. -Letter 143"

From a footnote about the same topic:

"[140] 1. In a subsequent letter to Rayner Unwin (no. 143), Tolkien is more definite that the Two Towers are 'Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol'. On the other hand, in his original design for the jacket of The Two Towers (see no. 151) the Towers are certainly Orthanc and Minas Morgul. Orthanc is shown as a black tower, three-homed (as seen in Pictures no. 27), and with the sign of the White Hand beside it; Minas Morgul is a white tower, with a thin waning moon above it, in reference to its original name. Minas Ithil, the Tower of the Rising Moon (The Fellowship of the Ring p. 257). Between the two towers a Nazgûl flies."

[Recovery]

Yet you didn't state that. You only provided that Sauron has the title of Lord of the Rings. Nothing about that definitively states that the title only refers to Sauron. It is probable it refers to him but not definitive.

- - - Updated - - -



The Two Towers is not ambigous because Tolkien himself commented on what towers it refers to. This is an example of a definitive answer.

"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading. There is, of course, actually no real connecting link between Books III and IV, when cut off and presented separately as a volume. -Letter 143"

From a footnote about the same topic:

"[140] 1. In a subsequent letter to Rayner Unwin (no. 143), Tolkien is more definite that the Two Towers are 'Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol'. On the other hand, in his original design for the jacket of The Two Towers (see no. 151) the Towers are certainly Orthanc and Minas Morgul. Orthanc is shown as a black tower, three-homed (as seen in Pictures no. 27), and with the sign of the White Hand beside it; Minas Morgul is a white tower, with a thin waning moon above it, in reference to its original name. Minas Ithil, the Tower of the Rising Moon (The Fellowship of the Ring p. 257). Between the two towers a Nazgûl flies."

how did you like the crankyanker on the stranger reveal? Pretty sick right?

[Xath]

Just want to throw this out there for you all to feast on...

As someone who never read a single word out of ANY of the tolkien books, Rings of Power, all things considered, is pretty decent. I've been enjoying it because I dont know any of the tolkien lore.

People like me are who this show is created for. People like me watch the show in far greater numbers than die hard tolkien fans or even half-assed tolkien fans.

People like me generate the money. There are more of me.

This can be applied to all of the marvel movies people complain about, the star wars movies people complain about, the wheel of time series, etc. Name a fantasy book thats had a television series or movie adaptation and you can apply this logic to it.

All in all for the rings of power 6/10 maybe 7/10. Actors are kind of stale. Story is good. Pacing is bad.

Story is trash actors are largely bad pacing is an absolute mess. Literally the only things going for it are music and some visuals.

[Triceron]

Yet you didn't state that. You only provided that Sauron has the title of Lord of the Rings. Nothing about that definitively states that the title only refers to Sauron. It is probable it refers to him but not definitive.

How is Tolkien's own writing in the books not definitive?

The fact he wrote Gandalf saying The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor makes it definitive.

What exactly are you arguing here? That it could be debated that it's the One Ring? No, it is not, because Gandalf's exposition already clarifies who the title refers to, and it is not ambiguously applicable to the One Ring or its various other bearers/masters.

We don't need Tolkien speaking on the subject outside of the books because it is already definitively outlined in the narrative, without ambiguity. There is nothing to clarify because it was never ambiguous to begin with, which is why this entire discussion of 'the One Ring could be the Lord of the Rings' is not up for debate at all. It's literally outlined in the text itself that Sauron is who the Lord of the Rings refers to.

The One Ring is not 'the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor'. Again, not up for debate at all.

[rhorle]

How is Tolkien's own writing in the books not definitive?

Because it doesn't state it is the only thing Tolkien considered to be Lord of the Rings. Or that the title of the book directly referred to Sauron. If Tolkien doesn't explicitly state something then it isn't definitive. Not every text becomes definitive just because it exists. Which is how we know that what The Two Towers reference is not ambiguous despite text, artwork, and whatever else calling that into question because Tolkien explicitly states what it refers to.

When the ring was destroyed the Dark Tower of Mordor collapsed. Who was the true Lord then? Also remember that when the ring was destroyed Sauron lost all of his native power. His remaining spirit also could not gain any power again so he could no longer be a threat. It really makes the One Ring out to be the true Lord.

[Adamas102]

Story is trash actors are largely bad pacing is an absolute mess. Literally the only things going for it are music and some visuals.

Don’t you get tired of posting the same garbage? We know you didn’t like it, and we know you’re absolutely worthless at gauging any of these aspects.

[Specialka]

Don’t you get tired of posting the same garbage? We know you didn’t like it, and we know you’re absolutely worthless at gauging any of these aspects.

As it seems you are as well.

[oplawlz]

All in all for the rings of power 6/10 maybe 7/10. Actors are kind of stale. Story is good. Pacing is bad.

That's fair, although I would dip to a 5 personally because there are so many poorly written bits. Not even talking plot devices, just stupid inconsistencies that should have been caught and tempered in final drafts.
Still, I really like the generic fantasy story they're telling, and if they for some reason had to leech off an existing IP at least they chose a good one.

[Triceron]

Because it doesn't state it is the only thing Tolkien considered to be Lord of the Rings.

There is no other 'Lord of the Rings' in the book, even if you are talking about the One Ring itself. Gandalf makes it clear who it definitively is.

You're just ignoring the fact that the book itself is written by Tolkien. You're looking for excuses to refute the book's own text as being definitive to its own narrative, and that's quite a poor and dishonest argument to make.

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong here. The book itself makes it definitive, and just because you choose to ignore the book to make your argument itself doesn't mean it isn't definitive. It just means you are presenting a poor argument

When the ring was destroyed the Dark Tower of Mordor collapsed. Who was the true Lord then?

Sauron. The ring is an extension of his will and contains a portion of his power. And Sauron remains the Lord of the Ring because canonically this is who Gandalf clarifies the title applies to.

The Ring itself is never referred to or hinted at being the 'Lord of the Rings', so this isn't up to debate. It is not ambiguous, and to infer that the ring is the true master because its destruction caused the tower to collapse is merely correlation, not canon.

You can argue that the ring contained great power, and had mastery over the other rings, and had a will of its own. That would all be debateable, because we know this information is true as far as the characters and the reader understands the nature of the ring. But it is not debateable whether it is what the Lord of the Rings title is referring to. That has been clarified by Gandalf in the books, without ambiguity.

It's no different than trying to argue that Frodo was the Lord of the Rings because Pippin said so. It's correlation, not canon. You can't take this information out of context just to present an argument for the sake of technicalities.

[Recovery]

That's fair, although I would dip to a 5 personally because there are so many poorly written bits. Not even talking plot devices, just stupid inconsistencies that should have been caught and tempered in final drafts.
Still, I really like the generic fantasy story they're telling, and if they for some reason had to leech off an existing IP at least they chose a good one.

Yeah, that's all im saying... As someone who knows nothing about the story from the books, (other than the movies and whatever they got right) the story isnt all that bad. Ive been entertained for the most part. As stated previously, the pacing causes some spikes in boredom, but not enough to where i would turn it off. Are you referring to inconsistencies between the show and the book or inconsistencies in the story the show is trying to tell? I didnt notice any in the show, but then again, I haven't really been trying to pick it apart or anything..

In my opinion though, replace the actress playing galadirel with Kate Beckinsale and the show is instantly better if for no other reason that Eye candy. lmao

[rhorle]

There is no other 'Lord of the Rings' in the book, even if you are talking about the One Ring itself. Gandalf makes it clear who it definitively is.

Gandalf is not Tolkien. He is a character in a book so he can not definitively state anything. All he is stating is a title given to Sauron. No one has claimed Sauron never had that title. You keep misusing defintively. The Ring is more then just an extension of his will. It contains so much of his power that he is bound to it. With out the ring existing he is a powerless spirit. It could be argued that both Bilbo and Frodo were Lords of the ring because of how they resisted its corrupting influence and used it for their own goals. It is a title that multiple people could hold.

[Triceron]

Gandalf is not Tolkien. He is a character in a book so he can not definitively state anything.

Sorry, but saying the same wrong statement over and over again doesn't somehow make what you're saying true. We're talking about what the title of the series is definitively referring to, and this is answered in the book no matter whether you regard this being Tolkien's own statement or not.

It would only be debateable if the Lord of the Rings title was applicable to any other person or object within the narrative canon, and the narrative answers this clearly and unambiguously. You can't then argue that it's not true because a character in the book isn't Tolkien. It actually is, because he wrote this intentionally and unambiguously.

It could be argued that both Bilbo and Frodo were Lords of the ring because of how they resisted its corrupting influence and used it for their own goals. It is a title that multiple people could hold.

Yes, it could be argued. And it would be wrong because The Lord of the Rings is definitively not referring to Frodo or Bilbo. All you're saying is people can argue it without regarding that they would be wrong for doing so :P

[rhorle]

It would only be debateable if the Lord of the Rings title was applicable to any other person or object within the narrative canon

That is the neat thing. It is applicable to an object within the narrative canon. The reason why your argument is false is the Two Towers. Tolkien himself said the book misleads readers as to what two towers are being referenced. Which means that just because a character or text in the book says something doesn't mean it excludes all other potential alternatives.

All Gandalf states is that Sauron has the title Lord of the Rings. You are expanded the scope of his statement to say nothing else is called Lord of the Rings. Something Gandalf never states and something the book doesn't raise. The fact that what you call "correlation" exists with in canon indicates that there exists something that can not be called unambiguous.

[oplawlz]

Yeah, that's all im saying... As someone who knows nothing about the story from the books, (other than the movies and whatever they got right) the story isnt all that bad. Ive been entertained for the most part. As stated previously, the pacing causes some spikes in boredom, but not enough to where i would turn it off. Are you referring to inconsistencies between the show and the book or inconsistencies in the story the show is trying to tell? I didnt notice any in the show, but then again, I haven't really been trying to pick it apart or anything..

In my opinion though, replace the actress playing galadirel with Kate Beckinsale and the show is instantly better if for no other reason that Eye candy. lmao

It's little things in the show itself, like you I'm just ignoring the other canon. Like the queen insisting that her general pretend she isn't blind and in the next scene she's wearing a blindfold - we should have had some development there or a more specific statement that she wanted to pretend for a little while because x.

Or the weird interactions with halbrand where he insists he doesn't want to be king and then suddenly folds because of an awkward conversation with galadriel rather than some meaningful event. Granted part of that is just the terrible chemistry between them.

Again, i'm not mad at the show, and I hope that it finds it's legs and irons out the little annoyances along the way. Hopefully some of the actors settle into their characters too.

[Triceron]

That is the neat thing. It is applicable to an object within the narrative canon.

It would be if not for the fact it is unambiguosly used to define Sauron.

The only context of the ttle of "The lord of the rings" in the books is only ever applied to two characters, Frodo in mentioning and Sauron in definition, and it is never applied to the actual One Ring in any context.

Again, you're ignoring the context of the book and its story to make an argument in ignorance. Repeating ignorance doesn't somehow make it less ignorant.

[rhorle]

Like the queen insisting that her general pretend she isn't blind and in the next scene she's wearing a blindfold - we should have had some development there or a more specific statement that she wanted to pretend for a little while because x.

It felt clear to me that she only wanted it to be kept a secret while "evacuating". Or at least not make a big fuss over it when they had other things to focus on at the moment. Even Halbrand doesn't seem that off in the scene you describe because it felt like he was trying to be careful about how he went about things. Trying to make it seem like others were deciding things. We see this with Celebrimbor where he guides him to the right conclusion rather then just telling him the steps himself. Look at how Galadriel got suspicious when Celebrimbor used "over flesh" rather then a more normal euphemism.

The show could have done things better for sure. Two more episodes might have worked in its favor to give more time for some things to be expressed or explored.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be if not for the fact it is unambiguosly used to define Sauron.

A character calling another character that does not mean it can not refer to anything else. Sauron also barely appears in the work titled after him. Yet the ring takes central focus. Again this is the same situation as the Two Towers. Tolkien had specific towers in mind yet also mislead with the text. What if it was the same with the title? The text implies one thing but it could be another?

I am not making an argument in ignorance. I am not ignoring context of the book and its story. The fact you try to make that claim after I've provided story to back up why the One Ring could be a "Lord" shows that I am using the context of the story to make an argument. That is far from ignorance.

[Triceron]

I am not making an argument in ignorance. I am not ignoring context of the book and its story. The fact you try to make that claim after I've provided story to back up why the One Ring could be a "Lord" shows that I am using the context of the story to make an argument. That is far from ignorance.

It ignores the fact Sauron is definitely the Lord of the rings which the book's narrative refers to lol.