Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Kumorii]

Sauron is the lord of the rings, anyone stating otherwise is a troll and should be ignored. To pretend otherwise is someone whose head is so far in the sand talking to them is literally pointless.

I mean, Tolkien didn't specifically mention that the barmaid in the shire wasn't the lord of the rings.
plot thickens.

[bledgor]

I mean, Tolkien didn't specifically mention that the barmaid in the shire wasn't the lord of the rings.
plot thickens.

Damn, you are right.

Someone should inform Rhorle that Tolkien never wrote guns/cars didn't exist in his universe, can't wait for Celeborn to come riding in on an M-1 Abrams mowing down orcs.

[Triceron]

Looks like Gandalf wasn't Wizard after all too.

[Skulltaker]

Isn't it strange that the ring can have power when it fits your claim but it can not when it supports mine? Isn't it strange that power can be removed from the ring, and middle-earth, but the Ring doesn't actually have power? The Ring does control the other rings. "One Ring to rule them. One ring to bind them." Not one Sauron.

A credit card doesn't take down the entire evil empire if it gets destroyed. It just removes a tool. The destruction of the Ring took down all of the empire because of how Sauron infused the Ring with power. It removed all of his power for good when it was destroyed. Because he put his "native power" into the Ring and with out that couldn't accrue non-native power. And yet we are supposed to be believe the Ring wasn't the true power and lord?

We know that the Ring just requires a vessel and not specifically Sauron. As Gandalf says he would become like the Dark Lord if he took the Ring from Frodo.

"‘No!’ cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. ‘With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.’ His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. ‘Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.’"

What about Galadriel? Who states the Ring works on in may ways with or with out Sauron around.


"For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp. The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls."

The Ring has the power. The Vessel can augment their power with the Ring but it is still coming from the Ring itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't it strange that you only ever decide to nitpick at certain details that fit your narrative, instead of answering to the entire response? Isn't it also strange that, a few posts ago, you said that anything that is said in the books, like Gandalf outright naming Sauron as the Lord of the Rings, is to be disregarded, and now you're trying to use a quote by Gandalf to try to establish your ridiculous narrative?

The Ring wasn't the true power, or the Lord. That power always came from Sauron. Whatever power the Ring has, it cannot use it on its own. Without a Ringbearer, the Ring is worthless, and only Sauron has come close to have any form of control over the Rings with it. The Nazgul keep doing Sauron's bidding, not the Rings.

Also, picking out one line from the poem sure suits your narrative right. But let's look at it whole, shall we?

"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."

One Ring made for the Dark Lord, Sauron, by himself. One Ring, made to rule them all. Not doing ruling by itself, which it can't. One Ring, made to bind them. One Ring to bring them all to him, to Mordor, and to bind them in the Darkness. One Ring made in the Land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie.

Also, Christopher Lee, close friends with Tolkien, names Sauron as the Lord.

[Ninelives9]

As someone who never minded too much if shows take liberties with source material ...I still think Amazon's Lord of the Rings ended up being pretty terrible and meh at best. I legit hoped for more.

[bledgor]

Looks like Gandalf wasn't Wizard after all too.

Better story/imagination than the writers of RoP.

[rhorle]

No, you just have poor reading comprehension. I can't be blamed for your own ignorance here, lol.

Yes, it could be argued. And it would be wrong because The Lord of the Rings is definitively not referring to Frodo or Bilbo.

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.

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.

It is neither my ability to read or my ignorance that is at question here. You flip flop and forget your own statements and claims. Your inane theory that the story is being told by a patient in a mental asylum can not be made per my argument. There is no supporting text in the books. There is no supporting text from the author. It shows a fundamentally lack of understanding on your part or a willful ignorance just so you don't have to admit you were originally wrong about the validity of the theory.

You could theorize that Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, the Gondor contributors, and whoever else embellished or got wrong certain parts of the story. Since it is supposed to be a book written by in-universe characters as well. Yet that is a far cry from a patient in a mental asylum. Nothing about the book definitively indicates it refers to Sauron. Again you show you don't understand that words. I've provided enough evidence from the book, and from the author, that indicates nothing definitively states such. The only thing your argument definitively proves is that Sauron has the same title. It does not indicate the title can only apply to him.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone should inform Rhorle that Tolkien never wrote guns/cars didn't exist in his universe, can't wait for Celeborn to come riding in on an M-1 Abrams mowing down orcs.

In his unpublished work and early drafts he actually did write about guns, metal boats, and even airships. Of course only explosives were left in his published work. So maybe stop your weird grudge against me because being clever doesn't suit you.

Some were all of iron so cunningly linked that the might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire, and they blasted all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or trampled whatso escaped the ardor of their breath

"Our ships go now without the wind, and many are made of metal that sheareth hidden rocks, and they sink not in calm or storm; but they are no longer fair to look upon. Our towers grow ever stronger and climb ever higher, but beauty they leave behind upon earth. We who have no foes are embattled with impregnable fortresses - and mostly on the West. Our arms are multiplied as if for an agelong war, and men are ceasing to give love or care to the making of other things for use or delight. But our shields are impenetrable, our swords cannot be withstood, our darts are like thunder and pass over leagues unerring."

Therefore many abandoned the Gods, and put them out of their legends. But Men of Middle-earth looked up with wonder upon them, and with great fear, for they descended out of the air ; and they took the Númenóreans to be Gods, and some were content that this should be so

The old line of the lands remained as a plain of air upon which only the Gods could walk, and the Eldar who faded as Men usurped the sun. But many of the Númenórië could see it or faintly see it; and tried to devise ships to sail on it. But they achieved only ships that would sail in Wilwa or lower air. Whereas the Plain of the Gods cut through and traversed Ilmen [in] which even birds cannot fly, save the eagles and hawks of Manwë

[Triceron]

It is neither my ability to read or my ignorance that is at question here. You flip flop and forget your own statements and claims.

Have you read all that you've quoted?

All of it is the same argument. That Sauron is the definitive Lord of the Rings.

Where do I claim that Frodo is the definitive Lord of the Rings? No where in any of those statements, lol. Nothing has been flip-flopped.

You could theorize that Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, the Gondor contributors, and whoever else embellished or got wrong certain parts of the story.

Yes and that would be an argument in ignorance because you're ignoring the fact that Gandalf is the narrative authority on the subject. You could only argue this if there were another instance where the 'Lord of the Rings' is applicable to any other character which properly challenges Gandalf's own authority. And there is no case where this exists whether we're talking about Frodo or Sam or the Gondor contributors or anyone else.

Understand that by saying you can come up with an ignorant theory, it does not make the truth any less true.

ve provided enough evidence from the book, and from the author, that indicates nothing definitively states such.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. You should know better than to apply a fallacy to an already ignorant argument.

Like Bledgor made the example above, he never said the barmaid was not the Lord of the Rings either. It doesn't change the fact that the Lord of the Ring is a title specifically referring to Sauron in the narrative.

The only thing your argument definitively proves is that Sauron has the same title. It does not indicate the title can only apply to him.

It is mutually exclusive because Gandalf, the narrative authority, literally explains this to be the case. If you can't take the narrative as being true, then you may as well be arguing that Lord of the Rings has no meaning at all because you don't trust anything in the narrative defining such parameters. As I said, it's an argument you can absolutely make, and I can point out clearly that is an argument in ignorance, because you ignore the facts in order to present that theory.

"My ignorance says this isn't definitive" is not a good argument to make, Rhorle. Like, I could theorize that you're not a real person and you could be a malicious internet bot on the internet. Just because I have a theory doesn't mean you aren't definitively human. And just because I can also say I don't trust any evidence you have to prove you are actually human doesn't open up the possibility that you are not a real human being. All this would mean is I would be presenting an argument in ignorance, one that doesn't take in factual evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion. Does this make sense?

Your argument challenges that facts can not be considered definitive because you consider arguments in ignorance to be equally valid to the discussion. And you're willing to support this with fallacies like absence of evidence, or by completely ignoring the context and twisting facts so that the definitions of 'Lord' and 'Rings' could apply to anyone/thing that fits your argument. Which goes again to my point - if no one calls you a Human and I theorize that you are a bot, would you consider this theory a possibility that you are not human?

The core issue here is that you are personally unable to or intentionally unwilling to differentiate a fallacy from a legitimate argument. The entire premise of the Lord of the Rings being applied to anyone other than Sauron would be an argument built on fallacies.

[rhorle]

Isn't it strange that you only ever decide to nitpick at certain details that fit your narrative, instead of answering to the entire response? Isn't it also strange that, a few posts ago, you said that anything that is said in the books, like Gandalf outright naming Sauron as the Lord of the Rings, is to be disregarded, and now you're trying to use a quote by Gandalf to try to establish your ridiculous narrative?

Please tell me where I said it is to be disregarded? I said it is not definitive proof that the title refers to Sauron. Only that it exists as a title Sauron was called. Posting the entire poem doesn't change anything about the line I posted. The same meaning exists. Yes Sauron made the One Ring for himself. He still fell to it's corruption the same as others would though. Him losing it meant he lost his physical form. It being destroyed didn't kill him but made it so he could have or gain no amount of power ever again.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do I claim that Frodo is the definitive Lord of the Rings? No where in any of those statements, lol. Nothing has been flip-flopped.

Last edited by Triceron; Today at 01:04 PM.

Funny how you edited it out? This is at least the second time you've done so in order to claim that you never said anything.

Gandalf is not the narrative authority on the subject. He isn't even present for all of the events in the books. The only thing you have definitively proven is that Gandalf gave Sauron the title Lord of the Rings. That does not mean that it can't apply to other things or that Tolkien himself was not misleading to hide the real lord "in plain sight". Calling a theory ignorant because you refuse to acknowledge the factual statements that give in weight is the proverbial sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

- - - Updated - - -

if no one calls you a Human and I theorize that you are a bot, would you consider this theory a possibility that you are not human?

Yes. It was something wondered by Rene Descartes who died in 1650. Have you also never heard of the theory that the real world exists in a simulation? It is valid to have that theory however this indicates your extreme strawman arguments. Instead of addressing the factual proof from the text or from the author I've provided you instead try to debunk with other things.

Also why edit in a response 12 mins after I already responded to your post? Just make a new post.

https://gizmodo.com/how-do-we-know-t...ots-1788858827
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3...93body_dualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

[Triceron]

Funny how you edited it out? This is at least the second time you've done so in order to claim that you never said anything.

Er, I never claimed Frodo was definitively the Lord of the Rings. Ever. Even if you call me out for editing, I never said what you're accusing me of, lol.

Yes. It was something wondered by Rene Descartes who died in 1650.

Alright, since you admit that there is a possibility that you are a bot then I'll express my own opinion that I don't think it's worth arguing with robots.

Have a good day, bleep bloop.

[rhorle]

Alright, since you admit that there is a possibility that you are a bot then I'll express my own opinion that I don't think it's worth arguing with robots. Have a good day, bleep bloop.

Your own edit indicates that is a lie. Lmao.

[Triceron]

Your own edit indicates that is a lie. Lmao.

Can't maintain your argument, so now you try to find other things to argue. Such a shame robots can be so petty.

[SpaghettiMonk]

It isn't a plot hole just because you don't like it. It isn't a lack of care with the lore because Durin III was alive when the rings were forged and Durin IV was alive when the War of the Ring took place. The timeline has been compressed so those events take place within a shorter span of time so Amazon can build up the same characters through out the season. Because of that compression it means that both are alive at the same time. Amazon could have chosen to go with random Dwarven kings instead but do you honestly think they wouldn't be nitpicked for not having a Durin?

This response ignores every part of my post and just restates a bunch of agreed on facts.

because Durin III was alive when the rings were forged and Durin IV was alive when the War of the Ring took place.

Yup, I know.

The timeline has been compressed so those events take place within a shorter span of time so Amazon can build up the same characters through out the season.

Yes, you said that already in your last post.

Because of that compression it means that both are alive at the same time.

Agreed. Logically, I believe you're trying to say:

1. Durin III was alive in time period A.
2. Durin IV was a live during time period B.
3. The show is taking place in a compressed timeline that combines time period A and time period B.
4. Therefore, both Durin III and Durin IV were alive at the same time in their show.

I agree with all of this. Do you agree now that both of us know and understand the basic facts here?

Do you honestly think they wouldn't be nitpicked for not having a Durin?

This is exactly what my previous post was about. Maybe read it instead of clipping off everything but the first three words?

[rhorle]

This is exactly what my previous post was about. Maybe read it instead of clipping off everything but the first three words?

So your post calling it a plot hole is really complaining about one of them not existing? The word you were looking for is "Faithful". There is no plot hole because there are two characters named Durin alive at the same time. It simply is not faithful to Tolkien's canon.

Also the forum rules state you don't need to quote an entire post in your response. So I cut it down to a relevant part. It doesn't mean I ignore everything else you said.

[SpaghettiMonk]

So your post calling it a plot hole is really complaining about one of them not existing?

Precisely the opposite - it's about both of them existing at the same time. We're back to debating about the facts again?

[Melius]

well out of boredom i watched the show. if i were to judge it without knowing anything about lotr i would say its a meh fantasy show with not very good writting, some poor casting choices and your typical ''the message'' moments like in most tv shows coming out of the us nowadays. but if you come in watching this and have read some of the books then this show comes off as very bad fan fiction and a filthy travesty. but i've seen worse shows, dont get me wrong i wouldnt rewatch this, still its puzzling that with all that budget they delivered this? they either step up for season 2 or i doubt this show will ever have 5 seasons. and yeah i pirated it cuz fu bezos

[Varodoc]

Lol at the guy trying to argue that Sauron wasn't the titular Lord of the Rings. Yet another reminder that nothing should ever be taken for granted on the internet.

[Adamas102]

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.

You literally don’t understand what a retcon is so maybe it would be best for you to stop using the word to describe minor changes that don’t actually disrupt continuity. Don’t try to talk down to anyone ever when you make statements on the same level as green is eight.

[rhorle]

Precisely the opposite - it's about both of them existing at the same time. We're back to debating about the facts again?

We were never debating about the facts. You said "This is exactly what my previous post was about" yet you also say it was the opposite now. The problem seems to be you keep using the wrong words. Exactly. Plot hole. Etc.

There being two durins is not a plot hole as it is part of the story. The show never stated only one can be alive at once and with the time compression it makes sense to go with Durin for the name of the King/Prince rather then random names. They remained faithful to one bit of the Tolkien canon while not remaining faithful to the other.

[Skulltaker]

It isn't a lack of care with the lore because Durin III was alive when the rings were forged and Durin IV was alive when the War of the Ring took place.

No, he wasn't. Durin the IV was alive around the time Sauron suffered his third defeat at the hands of Elendil, Isildur and Gil-Galad; end of the second age, beginning of the third. The War of the Ring took place roughly 3000 years after his death. At that time, there was no ruling King of Moria, because ~1980 in the Third Age, Durin VI woke up (not personally) and was killed by the Balrog known as Durin's Bane. It's not even clear that Durin IV is a direct descendant of Durin III.

- - - Updated - - -

Please tell me where I said it is to be disregarded? I said it is not definitive proof that the title refers to Sauron. Only that it exists as a title Sauron was called. Posting the entire poem doesn't change anything about the line I posted. The same meaning exists. Yes Sauron made the One Ring for himself. He still fell to it's corruption the same as others would though. Him losing it meant he lost his physical form. It being destroyed didn't kill him but made it so he could have or gain no amount of power ever again.

Same thing. And yes, posting the entire poem does change everything you posted about the most famous part of it. It provides context. And no, Sauron wasn't corrupted by the Ring. The way he created it increased his own power, while he had it, but also bound his power to it. So he had to keep it safe, and had to focus all his strength on getting it back. Without it, he was diminished. That doesn't mean he was in any way controlled by it. He was very much in control himself, as evidenced by the Nazgul and all the other creatures he subdued with the help of the Ring still following his orders.

- - - Updated - - -

We were never debating about the facts. You said "This is exactly what my previous post was about" yet you also say it was the opposite now. The problem seems to be you keep using the wrong words. Exactly. Plot hole. Etc.

There being two durins is not a plot hole as it is part of the story. The show never stated only one can be alive at once and with the time compression it makes sense to go with Durin for the name of the King/Prince rather then random names. They remained faithful to one bit of the Tolkien canon while not remaining faithful to the other.

Plothole is the wrong term, but it sure as hell is an inconsistency. First of all, Durin IV isn't the Son of Durin III. The complete line of Durin is only known starting with Durin VI. Dwarves reserved the name 'Durin' for members of the line of Durin that resembled him in character and likeness. They believe them to be a reincarnation of him, so it's quite possible that the name Durin in itself is a kind of title, given to the Dwarven King in question after he has shown what he's made of. So there being two of them makes little sense, lorewise.

So... which part of the Tolkien canon did they stay faithful to, again?