The one thing that I don't like about the One Ring explanation:

It turns you invisible, unless you are the one person for whom it was actually designed (Sauron).

To me, it seems like the rings of power and especially the one ring should grant a more consistent actual power than that. The three elven rings made by Celebrimbor outside the influence of the one are much better examples.

Narya is the "ring of fire", and in the timeline of LoTR it is held by Gandalf. Which makes sense, because he does a lot of fire-related stuff with his magic. Nenya is the "ring of water" held by Galadriel, and Vilya the "ring of air" held by Elrond. These are used less consistently in the books (or movies), but one movie example is the flood that helped save Frodo and get him to Rivendell. In the movie, the flood is shown as being made of water with horse shapes surging through it, which suggest the magical influence of both Nenya and Vilya (water and air) working together. Anyway, those 3 rings have a consistent and fairly well established list of powers associated with their "elemental" attachments, fire, water, and air.

But the one ring lacks that consistency. It is supposed to help Sauron with his urge to dominate, but it doesn't really explain how that works. It doesn't make him invisible; only others who wear it. Also, it helps him to control or at least influence the wearers of the other rings. That is probably the best, most established power of the one ring, but it is also a bit shaky because wearers other than Sauron don't get those abilities. It seems to make other wearers just more susceptible to corruption, greed, and lust for power.

To me, I think it would be more interesting if the one ring actually granted a more specific power, unique to the psychological state of the wearer. The consistently presented thing about the one ring is that it corrupts, and nothing corrupts more than power. So basically, I think that the one ring should be analyzing whoever wears it, and granting them a unique power that is specifically designed to provide them with their greatest source of temptation to abuse that power.

The invisibility power actually makes a lot of sense for hobbits. As presented in the video here, they generally aren't very ambitious. BUT, hobbits are established as being stealthy beings by default, so granting them invisibility is a good source of temptation to turn that stealthiness into more nefarious purpose. So, I don't mind that the three main hobbit (or hobbit-like) wearers (Gollum/Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo) all consistently get the invisibility power out of the ring.

Human wearers like Isildur would have less consistent powers granted by the rings, because they have more diverse motivations than hobbits. Just as an example, I'd think that Isildur would be motivated by martial prowess and leadership after watching his father killed by Sauron and the human/elven armies decimated at the end of the second age. So, the ring could perceive that about him and grant him physical power and charisma to lead -- both of which would be very easily turned to corruption. Invisibility just doesn't logically provide the same level of temptation for someone like Isildur.

Finally we come to Sauron himself. He is already an exception to the "ring grants invisibility" concept. But for him, the ring should (and arguably does) represent power and control. Sauron had to put on a false face and play the role of deceiver to get Celebrimbor and the other elves to accept him and create the other rings. Having to stoop to that rather than simply crushing them made him despise that sort of approach; after creating the one ring he cast that aside and became all about sheer power and domination, rather than trickery and deception. So, I see the ring's powers granted to Sauron himself as being sort of a conversion of those cunning/deceptive abilities into might, self preservation, and overwhelming mental dominance that allows him to control his orc armies.


Sorry for the length of that -- I have just always felt that the established powers of the one ring would be a bit more interesting if they led to corruption through real power granted to the wearers, rather than "it makes them invisible, but not Sauron, and in general corrupts them, just because".

I haven't seen The Hobbit 3 - do they talk about the Seven at all in the film? It would have been a great way to link the Hobbit films with the darker, bigger world of the LotR trilogy if Thorin had come into possession of one of them after Smaug was killed.

Never having read any of the Tolkien books, I made the questionable decision to read the Silmarillion before any of the other books (except the Hobbit). I gained one distinct advantage in reading through the LOTR books in that I already knew almost all of the stories that are only briefly told by the various characters. But was it worth it? Yes, though only the second half of the book was really captivating for me.

Sadly, some quick google searching indicates that the Silmarillion is still owned by the Tolkien estate who doesn't appreciate PJ's treatment of the LOTR/Hobbit. Maybe someday another studio/director might get the chance...

I thought the whole point of the Hobbit was to integrate many parts of Tolkien's works into the main framework of the Hobbit. Honestly, even tho it dragged a bit here and there, I am loving these movies way more than LoTR, book or movie. The Hobbit is a good, relatively well written book. The LoTR is a dungeon master that's narcissistically held you captive in his basement while he shows you all his figurines.

I personally think that the first two hobbit movies were more entertaining than the LoTR movies, simply because they were creative in their story telling rather than glued to the rather subpar writing of Tolkien.

Dwindling optimism that it recaptures the feeling that made the LOTR movies so much better than the first two Hobbit movies.

Apathy towards 3D and discontent at HFR.

That would explain the absence of that line from this video. Quoting LOTR all the time like that I'm surprised he even managed to land a girlfriend in the first place.

Update: Tormenting ex-girlfriend with lotr quotes.

I'd concur but I'd like to see you (or Cracked I guess) expand on just how many parallels can be made.

I'd start with the opening of the Silmarillion, the creation story that is pretty much a better version of Genesis (the gods singing the universe into existence). Then I guess quite a bit of the rest of the Silmarillion is pretty Old Testament-ish; lots of begats, chosen people being kicked out of/leaving Eden/Valinor, more angry and active creator(s), etc.

I suppose maybe that makes the Hobbit and LOTR itself the New Testament, but no parallels are jumping out at me there. Frodo dies (almost) and then comes back to life, helps everybody out, and then ventures off to Valinor, so maybe he is Jesus...

I think Sean Astin should be added to the list, if only for the LotR trilogy. O'Toole is a big one but I think Oldman is perhaps the best actor around today.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by grinter.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

More times then not siftbot doesn't catch the dupes, but will be noticed and duped by other sifters. Its something that happens on a regular basis(it happens to all of us) No big deal but all duplicates get the same treatment as are the rules of the sift. *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/LOTR-Forced-Perspective-Moving-Camera

I was going to say *dupeof http://videosift.com/video/LOTR-Forced-Perspective-Moving-Camera but the other one appears to be dead.

What's the resolution for this? (And I'm pretty sure siftbot is going to smack me down for not being uber)