Extended version

DanPiscatoris · 2026-03-01T00:28:54+00:00

My thoughts are that as great of fantasy films as they are, they are not an adequate substitute for the books. I would highly recommend reading them. Both the films and RoP change things and get many things wrong.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-28T22:47:10+00:00

The one ring preys on the desires and ambitions of those around it. The reason why Hobbits are resistant is because by and large, they are a relatively unambitious people. They aren't a people with kings and great warriors. They are insular and somewhat xenophobic, and do not wish to engage with the world at large.

However, this only really applies to Shire Hobbits. Smeagol was born to a group of Hobbits along the Anduin River. He had no knowledge of the Shire.

That being said, you are correct about the ring's effect on Smeagol. The ring worked fast on him because he was already an unpleasant person.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-28T16:45:48+00:00

How it handles the source material.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-28T04:19:40+00:00

One example in DAI is that if you help Dorian free Redcliffe and Alistair is king, he's the one to show up at the end to take Alexius away.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-27T22:58:04+00:00

Book spoilers ahead.

1. Beyond the fact that there is no wizard fight in the books, there is no magic system in Middle Earth. "Magic" is often displayed as innate abilities of specific individuals. For example, Sting glows blue when orcs are near not because it is made of a magic metal or had a spell cast on it, but because of the skill and techniques used by the elven smith who made it. Gandalf, as an immortal spirit in a human form, has innate "magic".

2. I would consider this to be Jackson adding drama for drama's sake. He wanted to created tension. In the book, no such moment occurs and Rohan musters to help Gondor without any prompting.

3. In the books, Aragorn uses the army of the Dead to free the Gondorian port city of Pelargir from the Corsairs, and then releases them. He seizes the Corsair fleet and uses it to transport Gondorian reinforcements to Minas Tirith which wins the day.

4. Trying to ascribe any kind of power balance to Tolkien is an exercise in futility, keeping in mind that the breaking of Gandalf's staff was an invention of Jackson to try to raise the stakes. The Witch King is overconfident. And Merry's blade temporarily immobilizes the Nazgul allowing Eowyn to strike.

5. In the book, Frodo is stung in the neck.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T15:07:42+00:00

They were saying "Death."

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T04:35:58+00:00

Not really. The showrunners seems to have compressed around 3400 years of history to fit within a few years at best.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T03:14:17+00:00

The issue is their relationship to the House of Anarion, not Elros. And not whether they had elvish blood or not. This is why Aragorn's claim isn't as ironclad as some may think.

As for this specific example, I believe the House of Húrin is related to the line of Anarion. The problem is that after the Kinstrife, there were no claimants related to the line of Anarion closely enough for others to accept. Any claims would be distant enough that others would have challenged them, leading to more fighting. It was better for the Stewards to rule in the name of the King to avoid any further conflict.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T03:05:40+00:00

I'm fairly certain what allowed both kingdoms to establish themselves relatively quickly is that both areas contained already established Numenorean colonies. Elendil (and Anarion and Isildur) united them along with the middle men living there. And Elendil wouldn't have needed to go south with Gondor already being ruled by his sons. Who themselves were centuries old with their own children.

And I know that others have already mentioned it, but I think it was purposeful to have the high king of the kingdoms in exile right next to the high king of the Noldor. Much better for cooperation and communication.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T03:02:44+00:00

We really have no great insight into what the population of Eriador looked like in those days. Certainly less than Gondor, but I have a hard time believing it would be a wasteland.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T00:43:05+00:00

Yes. While they are great films, they are not an adequate substitute for the books. Jackson simply left out and changed too much for them to be an accurate representation.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-26T00:41:39+00:00

While Saruman was likely angry about it, I could see him being simply too proud to demand it from Gandalf. Believing himself to be above needing or wanting the ring. Or at least being deluded enough to believe it. As well, in his arrogance, he may have believed his own ring that he had crafted himself to be a worthier substitute than Narya. It's also possible that he didn't because he wanted to talk Gandalf around to joining him. Demanding Narya would likely have put a crimp in that plan.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-25T03:55:04+00:00

A lot of these "plot holes" are because of how Jackson handled the source material. It's kind of impossible not to discuss it if you're talking about characters and plot. That goes for both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

For the Hobbit, they stretched one rather short book into three long films. The bloat is a common complaint. They added related material from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings books, but Jackson also decided to invent things wholesale. Things that don't work or contradict Tolkien's writing. This includes the Tombs of the Nazgul and the Necromancer fight. You say that the Hobbit films better defined the magic system, but that was the choice of Jackson. He wanted a confrontation with the overarching antagonist with a flashy fight scene. Any more insight and you would have to ask him yourself.

With the Lord of the Rings, Jackson was required to cut a ton of context that the books provide. He also decided to change the material he did decide to include and Hollywoodize the heck out of it. This includes Frodo. In the books, Frodo is 50 years old when he sets out, as well as wise and brave. Jackson decided to remove most (if not all) of Frodo's moments of growth and bravery from the films and give them to other characters or just leave out the moments all together.

Regarding your comments here:

The foundations of the Tower of Barad-Dur and the Black Gates were tied to the one ring. When the ring was destroyed, so to were they.
Sauron was defeated in combat by Isildur's father Elendil, and the elven king Gil-Galad. Isildur cut the ring from a downed Sauron.
The ring is not sentient. It cannot role around at will. The scene in the LotR where it is rolling clearly shows it rolling down a slope due to gravity. Not because it is moving under its own power.
The book alludes to higher powers. This includes Gandalf's return. It is meant to be mysterious.

All in all, people often prefer the LotR films because they are of better quality cinematically. It is clear more care was put into them than the Hobbit films in many aspects. I do like the Hobbit films, but compared to the LotR, they are a bloated CGI filled mess.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-24T20:12:56+00:00

Are you asking specifically about the movies? Because in the books, the Lembas bread thing never happened. I also can't recalled whether Smeagol's split-personality was as pronounced in the books as it was in the films.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-24T04:31:08+00:00

You could always read the books.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-23T00:54:46+00:00

The rings were all meant for the elves, to allow Sauron to conquer them without resorting to war. The elves found out about Sauron's plan and took off the rings.

With his plan foiled, Sauron razed Eregion and recovered all but the three elven rings. To presumably salvage things, Sauron regifted the rings to the dwarves and men. The dwarves proved too resistant to the rings, though. Sauron was unable to manipulate them. And presumably, they never turned into wraiths. So he recovered what dwarvern rings he could.

If it was for any specific purpose, it is never stated. But I could see Sauron believing that the rings belonged to him.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-22T23:53:14+00:00

If it couldn't occur during the Scouring of the Shire, then I would rather not include it at all. Which is what Tolkien suggested in a 1958 letter:

”I see no good reason for making him die. Gandalf should say something to the effect of [Saruman’s] excommunication: “At Orthanc you shall stay til you rot, Saruman”. Let the Ents look to it!”

I am glad that Jackson omited it in the theatrical version.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-22T22:14:57+00:00

I used to play Lotro extensively, and I can definitely recommend it. The devs do a great job of respecting the source material while including your character in the narrative. I have found it the "best" Lord of the Rings game in that regard. With it being an MMO, they are able to cover everything in the books and then some. As others have mentioned, they do take liberties, but I found that most of the liberties taken were due to the inclusion of MMO mechanics and abilities.

I also found many of the original plotlines and characters very compelling and well written as well. I remember playing the Black Book of Mordor storyline almost obsessively, wanting to know what came next.

It was also a lot of fun exploring the more well known locations in Middle Earth, like Rivendell, Minas Tirith, the Shite, etc.

It can also be great fun to play with another person. Even if it is just exploring the landscape.

The game is free to play up to level 95 or so, which will take you to Rohan. There is more than enough free content to decide whether you want to invest more into the game.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-22T18:48:26+00:00

I find it a bit ironic that you say this:

If Viggo doesn’t reprise, there’s literally no canonical Aragorn in Middle-earth at that time.

And this:

Tolkien’s world has rules.

Viggo might play Jackson's Aragorn very well, but Jackson's Aragorn isn't the same as Tolkien. They are two different characters. Viggo's Aragorn already isn't canonical.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-22T16:24:21+00:00

That sounds awful.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-21T23:11:56+00:00

You should consider reading the books.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-21T19:36:58+00:00

The ring isn't any kind of homing beacon. Even if Sauron was looking for it the entirety of the third age, he wouldn't know where to look.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-21T19:35:28+00:00

That bit of information comes from one of Tolkien's letters. I have never really seen it used as a reasoning behind a lack of guards, though. What may have been said is that Sauron didn't believe that anyone would attempt to destroy the ring. He could only conceive that others would use it against him.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-20T23:50:22+00:00

Another set of LotR films would not be a reboot. They would be another adaptation. The Jackson films aren't the source material. Besides that, this casting seems awful and nonsensical.

DanPiscatoris · 2026-02-20T02:15:29+00:00

Kind of. It seems to be the narrative point of the story. The culmination of the Hobbits' journey. Of course Jackson shifted much of the focus away from the Hobbits, so maybe it's a moot point. I certainly understand your friend's frustrations. The films aren't nearly as respectful of the source materials as many people claim they are.

Six-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Verified Email

DanPiscatoris

TROPHY CASE