Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[rhorle]

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

Again, no one has claimed Sauron doesn't get called that title. As The Two Towers demonstrate Tolkien could mislead with the text when his intention was otherwise. It is possible, within the canon of the story, that the One Ring was the Lord referenced in the title of the book. You've done nothing to indicate otherwise. It is possible, and as I've said more likely, that it is referring to Sauron. He is the main evil despite not really showing up in the book himself.

It can even be argued that the One Ring and Sauron are the same entity. It essentially contains part (or all) of his soul.

[oplawlz]

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.

Sure, I was able to infer what I consider to be acceptable reasons for lots of stuff, but it could have been done better. Not to hammer on the queen thing, because honestly that was just a minor example that popped into my head -- but nothing had significantly changed about the situation between those scenes. The people were still defeated and demoralized, it wasn't suddenly a better time to be blind.
Add to that the general(sorry, i cant remember the name of isildors father) is for some reason now angry at galadriel because. . . a mountain exploded? Like, grief takes strange form, but how does that in any way correlate? They weren't even defeated in battle, it was for all they know a natural disaster. We needed more context there, something to warrant his reaction.

[rhorle]

Add to that the general(sorry, i cant remember the name of isildors father) is for some reason now angry at galadriel because. . . a mountain exploded? Like, grief takes strange form, but how does that in any way correlate? They weren't even defeated in battle, it was for all they know a natural disaster. We needed more context there, something to warrant his reaction.

They live in a world with magic and stuff. Water erupting from the ground in the village followed by a mountain erupting seems like they wouldn't consider it "natural". Granted crazy "acts of god" are not out of the question in Middle-earth so maybe they would. The Orcs also started chanting "Udun" which is Sindarin for Hell before the eruption. However that doesn't exclude a natural disaster.

Elendil says "I should have left her in the sea where I found her". So even if it was assumed to be natural his anger still fits because his son was only there because she convinced them to go. She never could have done that if he never brought her on board. I don't think we need more context at all for a father to be angry, misplaced or not, over the death of his son.

[Xath]

8 episodes is a short season. It may be in the normal range for streaming but it is still on the short end of the spectrum. Broadcast TV often has double or three times as many episodes.

- - - Updated - - -



It isn't a plot hole. The time line is compressed. So Durin III is alive with Durin IV. It would be silly to have another few kings thrown in just to fit Tolkien canon when it is already compressed.

It's two movies they are terrible writers

- - - Updated - - -

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.

You literally stated a retcon wasn't a retcon even rhorle doesn't do that they just try to slide around the topic. Don't try to talk down to anyone ever when you make statements on the same level as green isn't green.

[Syegfryed]

If they name Anathar as Halbrand, a name they pull out of their asses, i don't see how it would be difficult to make Durin father be named anything else, they already showed they don't care about lore by having the two be alive at the same period anyway.

[Triceron]

Again, no one has claimed Sauron doesn't get called that title. As The Two Towers demonstrate Tolkien could mislead with the text when his intention was otherwise. It is possible, within the canon of the story, that the One Ring was the Lord referenced in the title of the book. You've done nothing to indicate otherwise. It is possible, and as I've said more likely, that it is referring to Sauron. He is the main evil despite not really showing up in the book himself.

It can even be argued that the One Ring and Sauron are the same entity. It essentially contains part (or all) of his soul.

In order to make that argument one has to consider how the title would be used and referred to within the context of the narrative.

Has 'the Lord of the Rings' ever been used to describe the One Ring? If not, by what means are we drawing a conclusion that the One Ring is the actual Lord of the Rings and not Sauron himself? If you are saying that the One Ring could possibly be the same entity as Sauron, then we're still talking about Sauron being the Lord of the Rings.

This is nothing more than semantics.

[rhorle]

It's two movies they are terrible writers

Right. Any hour long TV show that has more then 2 or 3 episodes has more then a movies content. Also what movies do you watch that are 4 hours long? Lol. Good or Bad writers still have trouble fitting everything in shorter seasons. For example could Game of Thrones have had a better season 8 if they had more episodes? As they had 6 when seasons 1-6 had 10. Don't you think that would impact the quality in the story a shows season told?

- - - Updated - - -

In order to make that argument one has to then consider how the title has been used and referred to within the context of the narrative.

Nope. A title doesn't have to be used in the narrative in order for it to refer to something. What matters is if something can fit that description. The One Ring as set up by Tolkien could fit that title despite never being called it. I've already given some basic points as to why it could. I don't see why restating them now would do any good if you've already ignored or dismissed them.

You contradict your own point by saying that Sauron and the One Ring being the same entity is still talking about Sauron. As the book never stated they were in the narrative, right? Funny how when you see something agreeing with your view it doesn't need to be supported by the narrative. Yet when something doesn't agree with your view it requires the narrative to explicitly state something.

[Triceron]

Nope. A title doesn't have to be used in the narrative in order for it to refer to something.

Which is ignoring the context, because 'The Lord of the Rings' within the narrative refers to Sauron.

Again, you're arguing in ignorance. You're trying to say 'Well it doesn't have to be', which means you're ignoring the fact that the Lord of the Rings is directly referencing Sauron, in order to make your argument.

What you're arguing here is that we can take the title out of context and apply it to different characters, and as I'm pointing out if you do that then you're arguing out of context of how the Lord of the Rings title was actually used in the novels.

You can rephrase your argument as many times as you want here, you are still arguing in ignorance. The Lord of the Rings title is mutually exclusive to Sauron in the narrative of the books. Making any argument around this would be ignoring how the narrative makes it clear that this title can only apply to Sauron and no one else. It is not left to interpretation.

You contradict your own point by saying that Sauron and the One Ring being the same entity is still talking about Sauron.

It's not a contradiction if it's your own example of what could be possible. 'Maybe the LOTR is the One Ring because it is the same entity as Sauron' is your own example. Well, that means the One Ring doesn't have an individual identity of its own, and we're still talking about the LOTR title still being applied to Sauron then.

Semantics.

And as I said, your explanation ignores the context of the narrative, since the Lord of the Ring title is applied to Sauron, while the One Ring is never referred to as the Lord of the Rings by mention or implication at all. You're drawing a conclusion that exists outside the narrative, and one that ignores that Gandalf literally explains 'There is only one Lord of the Ring (and he is Sauron)'. No matter how you're trying to frame this as being my contradictions or my problems, your argument is still ignorant and you're still trying to argue semantics.

Like I said, this should have been nipped in the bud pages ago. It's very strange that you're choosing this to be the hill you're going to die on, especially when you don't even agree with the argument, or any of the examples you're making.

[rhorle]

Which is ignoring the context, because 'The Lord of the Rings' within the narrative refers to Sauron.

Right. You don't need to repeat yourself or bold it as it is something no one has disputed. The fact they use the title of the book to describe a character in the narrative doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have to be the only thing Lord of the Rings refers to. Remember Tolkien had "Two Towers" even though there were a few different tower combinations that would work. Even though the ones he intended were not the ones his own text implied. The story of the One Ring being the ruler of the others fits "Lord". You can ignore that part of the narrative all you want but it only makes you willfully ignorant.

I never said that Lord of the Rings refers to the One Ring because Sauron and the One ring could be the same entity. I merely said an argument can be made to say the One Ring and Sauron are the same entity. That has nothing to do with the phrase "Lord of the Rings". It was brought up as an example of something not stated outright but backed up by the story narrative.

I'm not choosing any hill to die on. Stop deflecting I've merely been discussing something with you. Just because I don't believe a theory doesn't mean it can't exist as a potential alternative. It is absurd to think that only one theory can exist on a topic and that only the one you believe it has a right to exist.

[Triceron]

Right. You don't need to repeat yourself or bold it as it is something no one has disputed. The fact they use the title of the book to describe a character in the narrative doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have to be the only thing Lord of the Rings refers to.

But the fact is, it is the only thing the Lord of the Rings refers to.

There is no other use of the title in any other context within the narrative. Meaning if you are going to use an argument that the Lord of the Rings title of the book refers to someone or something that isn't Sauron, you'd have to be talking outside of the context of the narrative..

There is no way to regard this in any other way without ignoring the context that the narrative's only mention of 'The Lord of the Ring' is clarified to refer to Sauron.

If you're implying that the situation is ambiguous like 'the Two Towers' then you're absolutely arguing in ignorance of the fact that this is already clearly established in the narrative to be Sauron and only Sauron.

See, right now the Two Towers has different interpretations only because of the cover art being inconsistent to what Tolkien intended the Two Towers to be. Otherwise even you acknowledge that there is a definitive answer - Orthanc and Cirith Ungol. And even in the face of having a definitive answer, people are still free to make an argument or theory of what they think the Two Towers refers to because of the cover art or because of any other reasons. So there's no point in trying to dismiss my argument that this is definitive by saying people can make other arguments or theories about this. We already have a definitive answer for the Two Towers, and people still make arguments and theories all the same - and those theories and arguments will never be definitive because we already have an answer. Just as we do for the question of 'who does the Lord of the Rings refer to'.

Stop deflecting I've merely been discussing something with you.

Nah. You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and applying ignorant examples all the while.

I can ask you clearly - How are you drawing a conclusion that the Lord of the Rings is a title being applied to anyone other than Sauron? If you say it's arguable merely because it's possible, then it's also possible to say that Aragorn or Arwen or Gollum could be the Lord of the Rings because you don't need any logic to form an argument. It's possible to make ignorant arguments, and that's exactly what this is. One that ignores the fact that the narrative already contextualizes the Lord of the RIngs to be Sauron, definitively.

It is absurd to think that only one theory can exist on a topic and that only the one you believe it has a right to exist.

Nothing wrong with presenting theories. The difference is what I'm presenting here is not a theory, it is canonical and factual to the narrative. What I'm presenting is a definitive fact which refutes other theories and denies them of being true, because they can never be proven to be true without taking the title 'Lord of the Rings' completely outside the context of the narrative. For anyone to say 'The One Ring could be the Lord of the Rings' would have to ignore the fact that Gandalf proclaims Sauron to be the only one who bears this title. Understand? No other theory can be considered definitive.

Gandalf proclaiming that there is only one Lord of the Rings and he is Sauron is definitively canon, even if you choose to question the charcter's authority on the matter. It is canonical, and it is not theoretical, it is pure definitive fact that the narrative refers to Sauron as the Lord of the Rings.

If you want to present theories, all the power to you. But at no point would any of your theories be definitive, would you agree? They'd just be theories, because there's no way to prove that the theory would be true, while what I'm presenting as a definitive fact would be the only legitimate source which everyone can agree on as being true to the narrative - that Sauron is the only definitive Lord of the Rings which the title of the series refers to. Canonically and factually to the narrative.

[Xath]

Right. Any hour long TV show that has more then 2 or 3 episodes has more then a movies content. Also what movies do you watch that are 4 hours long? Lol. Good or Bad writers still have trouble fitting everything in shorter seasons. For example could Game of Thrones have had a better season 8 if they had more episodes? As they had 6 when seasons 1-6 had 10. Don't you think that would impact the quality in the story a shows season told?

- - - Updated - - -



Nope. A title doesn't have to be used in the narrative in order for it to refer to something. What matters is if something can fit that description. The One Ring as set up by Tolkien could fit that title despite never being called it. I've already given some basic points as to why it could. I don't see why restating them now would do any good if you've already ignored or dismissed them.

You contradict your own point by saying that Sauron and the One Ring being the same entity is still talking about Sauron. As the book never stated they were in the narrative, right? Funny how when you see something agreeing with your view it doesn't need to be supported by the narrative. Yet when something doesn't agree with your view it requires the narrative to explicitly state something.

It's almost like I am specifically referring to the trilogy with the extended editions clocking in around 3 hours 30 mins per but hey with the normal version we are even part way through return at this point.

Less has happened in this joke of a series than happened in either Fellowship or Two Towers in over double the time.

[Veggie50]

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.



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.

Please don’t confuse “I have a strong opinion on this” with “there is no debate”. Especially since we’re literally debating this…

In secondary writings, I often see Sauron referred to as the lord of the rings. Secondary being things like wikis. In Tolkiens own texts I only remember him referring to sauron as “the lord of the ring”. The distinction between singular and plural is minor of course, and could well be off hand. But Tolkien IS known for minor linguistic deviousness.

[Triceron]

Please don’t confuse “I have a strong opinion on this” with “there is no debate”. Especially since we’re literally debating this…

In secondary writings, I often see Sauron referred to as the lord of the rings. Secondary being things like wikis. In Tolkiens own texts I only remember him referring to sauron as “the lord of the ring”. The distinction between singular and plural is minor of course, and could well be off hand. But Tolkien IS known for minor linguistic deviousness.

Sauron is the only one that 'The Lord of the Ring' references in the narrative. This title is never used or applied to the One Ring in the narrative while it has been used directly to reference Sauron. What exactly are we debating here?

That the title could possible refer to the One Ring because we can take the entire reference to Sauron out of context to apply it to an object that was never once referenced by the title, in any of Tolkien's own notes or writings, of being the Lord of the Rings? The context is quite clear that the title is not being applied to anyone or anything outside of Frodo in mention, and Sauron by clarification. And I will acknowledge the plural/singular pronoun use in context to the narrative and how Tolkien originally wrote it. On this point, I will say as a matter of opinion I don't see it being a difference in making the point that this is still the only mention of the title or anything close to that being applied in the narrative, and it is not used or implied in any way to be referencing the One Ring itself.


IMO, this entire course is as fruitless as trying to argue that the Return of the King is referring to the return of the Witch King of Angmar. Or if we want to apply Rings of Power into this, Sauron as Halbrand, the would-be self proclaimed King of the Southlands. The argument can be made, yet the theory would be fruitless considering it's clear who the King is actually referring to. Just because a theory can sound plausible doesn't make it considerably true.

[Veggie50]

Sauron is the only one that 'The Lord of the Ring' references in the narrative. This title is never used or applied to the One Ring in the narrative while it has been used directly to reference Sauron. What exactly are we debating here?

That the title could possible refer to the One Ring because we can take the entire reference to Sauron out of context to apply it to an object that was never once referenced by the title, in any of Tolkien's own notes or writings, of being the Lord of the Rings? The context is quite clear that the title is not being applied to anyone or anything outside of Frodo in mention, and Sauron by clarification. And I will acknowledge the plural/singular pronoun use in context to the narrative and how Tolkien originally wrote it. On this point, I will say as a matter of opinion I don't see it being a difference in making the point that this is still the only mention of the title or anything close to that being applied in the narrative, and it is not used or implied in any way to be referencing the One Ring itself.


IMO, this entire course is as fruitless as trying to argue that the Return of the King is referring to the return of the Witch King of Angmar. Or if we want to apply Rings of Power into this, Sauron as Halbrand, the would-be self proclaimed King of the Southlands. The argument can be made, yet the theory would be fruitless considering it's clear who the King is actually referring to. Just because a theory can sound plausible doesn't make it considerably true.

For someone who says theres no debate here, you're debating hard

[Triceron]

For someone who says theres no debate here, you're debating hard

Well, since you aren't discussing the topic any more then this is no longer a debate.

[Veggie50]

Well, since you aren't discussing the topic any more then this is no longer a debate.

Perhaps no longer, but it certainly was

[Skulltaker]

Perhaps no longer, but it certainly was

People can make a debate out of the shape of the world. Doesn't mean all views here are valid. Just because you have someone arguing against facts doesn't mean that their proposed falsehoods are in any way true, it just means that, as always, there are people trying to make bullshit points.