Well layed out! I still disagree on enough points to sit me solidly in the Middle Earth Camp, but that seems to come more from a difference of what we value out each story than any disagreement with anything you said. Like the lack of a tangible BBEG in LotR. The story is less about a surmountable enemy as it is a dialog about the dangers of power. The whole power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Men" are always seeking new advancements, new lands, new technology, and are always looking forward, "to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was, hmm. What he was doing." And because of this they fall to corruption more easily; Theoden, Grima, Denethor, Boromir. Frodo on the other hand doesn't fall as easily to it, because he is a small person, with smaller wants, from a culture that values smaller things. The whole point is that despite this, Frodo's fall is inevitable, and only succeed through the help of others around him, grace, and the other most important point of the story, that evil destroys itself from within. Merry and Pippin escape when the Uruk-hai and Uruk-morgol fight each other. The orks of Cirith Ungol killed each other to a man over a "Shiny Shirt", and most importantly despite the One Ring's greatest protection against harm (those who hold it will practically do anything else than do anything to bring it harm); it created the creature required to defeat it, Gollum. The books actually show how hard it is to intentionally try to damage the Ring, even all the way back in the Shire. I think that the original Trilogy SW is one of the greatest adventure stories of all time, but I think that while The Hobbit is a spectacular adventure story, the Lord of the Rings is an Epic, with the intent of gleaning insight on the corruption of power and advancement for advancement's sake, but through the lens of those living through it. To be fair, I think SW does attempt this in the PT, but falls short on the delivery. I hope y'all caught one of my favorite Star Wars quotes up above as well!
A good point. I agree with much of your analysis. I value a strong tangible villain that actively works against the heroes. Someone who actively works to defeat the protagonist as he/she peruses their own goals and ambitions. They are dangerous and create a sense of tension. They are strong and smart. They can both react to our heroes actions and preemptively set things into motion that our hero must overcome. How can our protagonist defeat someone seemingly more powerful than them? I love the hero vs. villain matchup and as such I do admittedly place greater value on it. Star Wars is extremely strong in this regard, so that definitely plays to my likes. I very often like a memorable villain more than the hero himself. Even without a "big bad", I still feel that LOTR falls a bit short in terms of an emotional payoff. If Frodo had somehow found it within himself to overcome the temptation that had corrupted the others that came before him, it would have had a greater impact on me as the viewer. I like the fact that he can't do it by himself and must rely on those around him (in my opinion Sam is the hero of the story), but I don't like how the ring was eventually destroyed by luck and happenstance. If we accept the premise that LOTR's central premise is that evil destroys itself, then what need is there of heroes? I better appreciate the idea that the only thing that can stand up to evil is good. A good that often requires growth, failure and self-sacrifice in one form or another. That said, both franchises are among the very best. There is room for both kinds of stories, and I do enjoy each of them. As you said, it is what we value from a story that will lead us to choose one over the other. And it is in this value that we differ. Good old Gimli gives it a fair shot! In an alternate universe he even succeeds! The book is great, but the Hobbit movie trilogy is a disaster. Don't mention this around @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl
I agree with this and that's also one of the reasons why the book is a masterpiece. It treats a universal theme as that, basically the whole story is functional to show that philosophical reflection. The movie does that too, but the movie remains a visual media, a grand adventure filled with battles that need to give a certain kind of payoff. If you look at it just to enjoy the adventure and the fantasy (a very legitimate approach) some solutions are not satisfying at all.
Remember, that while Gandalf and Sarumon are called "wizards" realistically they are closer to being "angels" or "gods" relative to how we understand the word these day. In a way "You shall not pass!" in metaphysical terms is on the same level of "Let there be light!" Gandalf wasn't so much as casting a spell to slow down the balrog as he was rewriting the laws of reality to make "That balrog is not crossing this bridge right now is now a law in the sense that gravity is a law." Gandalf wouldn't touch the one ring and Saruman, greatest of the wizards/angels was corrupted by the idea of having it. I have enough appreciation filming techniques for how difficult it is to make a good villain in cinema. It took a lot of work from the actors, crew, writers, and directors to make Darth Vader a memorable villain, but mahrlect. Peter Jackson and his crew took an abstract internal conflict and made it into movie magic! In my opinion, one of the reasons The Hobbit movies did not land near as well as LOTR was that the LOTR had a better internal conflict baked in than the Hobbit's "gold fever" or whatever. I believe there are a few other problems in the Hobbit movies. There were more than three problems, but I think the big three are 1) this should have been a two-part movie, not a three part movie. 2) prequels are harder to make good than sequels are and making good sequels and never easy. 3) Peter Jackson became a victim of his own success and had fewer voices (both in his head and outside of it) telling him "This is a bad idea." It happened to GL with the Star Wars prequels. Even creative geniuses make mistakes once in a while. My two favorite living and active directors are Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton. I'm assuming Nolan has someone who can keep him grounded. Burton, I will admit, he does far better when he has creative freedom Beetlejuice, Big Fish, Edward Scissorhands Frankenweenie, A Nightmare before Christmas (yes, I know he didn't direct it, but he came up with the original concept and that is BIG), and others. But his weaker movies were Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dumbo, and Dark Shadows, Sleepy Hollow. Generally, when Tim Burton stumbles he is using a famous IP. When he does well he is using his own idea or some obscure IP. Though he did well with Batman. I never saw Dumbo because I am avoiding Disney in general and Disney remakes especially , so I cannot speak for that one. I would argue that Tim Burton's worst movies are okay. I've seen Burton make mediocre stuff but I've never seen him make an abject failure. I cannot even say as much for the modern god of animated comic books, Bruce Timm who made a whole bunch of really awesome Batman projects...and The Killing Joke which was so so bad. So I've rambled a lot. Both the Star Wars universe and Middle Earth has a mixture of very awesome media and very bad media. I choose to compare the best of Star Wars versus the best of Middle Earth and give both franchises a free pass for the garbage they are carrying.
This was my main source material You might also like Nerd of the Rings and Men of the West, the two best Youtube channels I've found for deep dives into Tolkien lores. In Deep Geek is pretty good too. Deep Geek and Men of the West do a lot of "what if" videos. What is Saruman remained good? What if King Thorin survived the events of the The Hobbit? What if Gandalf took the one ring? What if Saruman took the one ring? I'm still waiting for for what if Lobellia Sackville- Baggins took the one ring. A lot of the LOTR lore channels do something wacky on April 1st.
Interesting video I have watched a lot of the videos from Nerd of the Rings and love his deep dive in the lore and history of Middle Earth. Watching his content made me pick up and read the Silmarillion again (and I did in 2021) Besides the Silmarillion there is so much more lore to find in the History of Middle Earth books and the Unfinished Tales (books that made it to my want to own list) Grrr, !mrahil
Couple of points: Frodo failed in his one job Others proved to have equal to or greater resistance to the ring (Sam and Bilbo respectively) Frodo made shitty decisions that luckily worked out for "story reasons" (trusting Gollum and turning his back on Sam) Due to the fact that Frodo had been worn down by the ring's influence, it would have made much more sense to let Sam carry it up the mountain and drop it in the lava. Sam at that point was much stronger mentally and physically (leading to the absurdity of him literally carrying Frodo up the mountain). Sam was the true hero. Saw through the lies of Gollum. Fended off Shelob and the goblins to save Frodo. Carried Frodo up the mountain. Never lost heart. Urged Frodo to throw the ring in the fire just as Frodo failed at his one job.
I voted star wars. I didn't really need to think it thoroughly over either. As a fantasy universe, I feel middle earth is one of the more grounded when we focus on the movies, it has all of the "staples" and not much more. It feels very set as a universe built on a foundation resembling somewhat our own and all of the special races bar a few are humanoid, I believe al of the intelligent ones are. I'll also never forget when I learned Tolkien has a habit of fixing written dead ends with inelegant solutions. Usually Gandalf or eagles come to save the day. I am also partly coloured by my love for Boromir, and how he died just when he realized his failings. Great action series, decent storytelling, but it sorta feels convoluted to me. Star wars is great, still has some flaws. But it tells its story in a way that is more appealing to me, and I am probably also more into a sci fi universe altogether. I was "lucky" enough to watch I first, as in the first movie sequentially, and IV - VI later, so I got hooked being young to even midichlorian talk. I like how both trilogies tell a simple story that can be followed through the series but interweave it with the larger scope of the two (4?) galactic civil wars. I feel drawn to more stories than simply good vs evil, and hip hop the ring to mount doom cuz everyone else is just a distraction. I also feel Palpatine/sidious is a cooler villain than the eye.
Ty! Got lost in life for a year or 7 there. Been thinking of going back into some painting soon, thought it was time to return to the feedi... fine! fine people here in Lustria. I'm a lizard now! I mean, i was always a Lizard, obviously. That's how it is! I'm happy to see everything is still active ^^ Obviously, it seems some people (other than me) have disappeared, but hey, if i came back after an eternity, they might too right?
Indeed, we've lost some of our most beloved forum members over the years. Here's hoping that they too return some day!
I would certainly agree on Sam's superior resistance to the ring, principally because Sam particularly valued the simple, incorruptible things in life like home and loved ones a lot more than Frodo did. However, I would consider the comparison between Bilbo and Frodo less clearly cut - given that Sauron wasn't actually looking for the Ring in the time of The Hobbit, it could be argued that the Ring was dormant at that time and was far less powerful, explaining why Bilbo was able to keep a hold of it for so long and only succumb to it at the time of The Lord of the Rings, when by that time it had heard its master's call and had strengthened its capacity for dark power. In that regard Frodo lasted a lot longer than Bilbo against the full blast of avarice and malevolence from the Ring (though of course Bilbo's great age would have been a handicap on his part). On the other hand, one could also say that, like Sam, Bilbo once again valued home and loved ones a lot more than Frodo - even in the Hobbit films the main reason Bilbo sets out on his adventure is for a selfless reason, to help the Dwarves get their home back - while Frodo embarks on his quest in part for his own desire for adventure and in part seemingly just because Gandalf told him to do it to save Middle-Earth and he just wanted to get it done. In general Frodo does cut a lot more of a selfish figure than Bilbo or Sam, and that in itself makes it easier for the Ring to corrupt him as it did Isildur, for example. I wouldn't say that trusting Gollum (or rather, specifically Smeagol) in itself was a bad decision, because for a while Frodo's trust in Gollum's original Hobbit self does prompt him to banish his evil, Ring-corrupted side, resulting in him being of genuine help to the Hobbits several times, including saving Frodo's life at the Dead Marshes. It's only when Faramir and his Rangers capture the three, and treat Smeagol particularly cruelly while Frodo looks on, that Smeagol starts to doubt Frodo's kindness in the (false) belief that Frodo betrayed him, and that doubt opens the door for Gollum to return. So this particular decision could have worked out well if it hadn't been for Faramir's desire to vent some of his bitterness toward Denethor. Turning his back on Sam, on the other hand, didn't actually work out at all, because of course it results in Frodo getting caught by Shelob. It's only Sam's willingness to forgive and discovering the proof that it was all down to a stitch-up by Gollum that Frodo could continue on his quest at all, and this itself is not part of that decision working out for story reasons, because it shows that Frodo should never have made that decision in the first place. More than that, Sam is the real hero because, as mentioned before, he valued the simple things in life, and felt no greed or hunger for power, and it was his reverence for those things that ultimately carried him through the journey without losing heart, unlike Frodo. Both Sam and Bilbo essentially embody the moral I think Tolkien wanted to preach the most in his works - that if more people valued home, friends, family and comfort like them, over adventure (like Frodo), money (Thror, Thorin, Smaug), power (Denethor, Saruman, Sauron), victory (Isildur, Boromir) or avenging past wrongs (Thranduil) then the world would be a better place.
We haven't mentioned this when berating Frodo, but he did also get cut by the sword of a Nazgul, even the witch king if my memory serves right. I believe it might have weakened his resolve somewhat. His confidence in the fellowship also seemed to shatter from that point onwards, while there was more to it than "i got cut by the witch-king" it could be a relevant factor that he had a mortal"ish" wound and survived all while carrying the ring of power. Yes he was healed by the elves (not sure if it was the elves, been a while) but nothing is to say that the ring of power didn't have a say in the matter. Just think about how it transformed Smeagol. Wonder if it didn't do any of that healing, and what the price was to Frodo's willpower. In many ways we might be underselling the trials and tribulations Frodo went through carrying an object that literally got heavier when it wanted to Marlecht you up.
Okay, so we agree on Sam, so we'll just leave that there. Bilbo carried and wielded the ring with relative ease in the Hobbit. It only very subtly affected him (for example, not wanting to reveal it to Gandalf). Yes, your point is valid that the ring was likely far more potent and seductive by the time of LOTR. However, consider that Bilbo had hung onto that ring for how many decades? The time scale isn't even remotely close. Having possession of it for so long and hearing its continual call would have to have worn down one's willpower and resolve. Additionally, to your point, Bilbo (like Sam) seem more grounded and less seducible by innate temperament. All things being equal, I'd would have very much rather have trusted Sam or Bilbo (in his prime) with the ring than Frodo. Let my clarify my statement of Frodo choosing wrong but having it work out for "story reasons". If Frodo had be wise to Gollum's true intentions they would have not allowed themselves to betrayed and they would have gotten rid of Gollum once they no longer needed him. However, if that had happened, then Frodo would have still chosen to keep the ring (failing at his one job) but now there would have been no Gollum to have a scuffle with and the ring would not have been accidentally destroyed. However, such a fortunate coincidence could not have been known or relied upon. Based on the information available to them, Frodo made the wrong choice... it just happened to work out for "story reasons". Bottom line, Sam saw Gollum for what he was and Frodo did not. Not only that, but Frodo put his trust in a very sketchy character over someone who had been nothing but loyal to him for his whole life. Sam was by far the most selfless character. Lastly, by the time they got to the base of Mount Doom, Frodo was shattered and broken (by the ring and by his injuries). Just let Sam carry it over the final stretch. Sam was still in prime condition, physically and mentally. Sam would have succeeded where Frodo failed. It made no sense to hand it to Frodo and then carry his carcass up the mountain (only to have him fail at his one job). I think that is an insightful and very plausible theory. If we assume it to be true, then it only furthers the fact that it would have been tactically sound to hand the ring over to Sam at that point. He was essentially a "fresh" player, unwounded and unburdened. Plus, I think he would have been a better candidate from the start (even before Frodo sustained the wound). Sometimes you got to pass the ball!
I can see your point, although it would be logical for Sam to take the ring over from Frodo and complete the job, there still is the fact that he is loyal to Frodo. His loyalty towards Frodo out-weight his desire to complete the goal himself. After the passage through the caves of Shelob, Frodo gets caught by the Orcs/Mordor Uruk-hai and Sam sets in for a rescue mission. He took the ring for safekeeping and upon revealing this to Frodo after the rescue Frodo reacts agitated and takes repossession of the ring. The fact that Frodo does no longer tolerate someone else carrying the ring makes Sam carry Frodo to the heart of Mount Doom. He rather would carry Frodo's corpse to the end than upset his friend and again take the ring from him. Grrr, !mrahil
I think as Imrahil was onto, that it was the defining feature of Sam and his goodwill in others that made Frodo carry the ring to the end. I also think Frodo needed to be the one delivering it. While he realized at the end, that he couldn't (strongly affirming that your argument is correct btw), had he been able to his hard work would have been rewarded. It might also be worth asking whether Sam really wanted to carry the ring at that point, we saw what it did to Frodo, maybe in some way that was Sam's weakness. Had he been strong enough to see the bigger picture, he should have taken the one ring, his defining weakness might be more than his faith in others, particularly Frodo, maybe in fact he was not strong enough to take the ring. Obviously we seem to be in agreement he should have, so why didn't he keep it, why didn't he take it up the mountain. It could be Sam had more fears than came to show in the movies. So yeah, i wholeheartedly agree Sam was the ideal carrier. The fact that a lengthy debate about the matter is necessary, and the fact that we are presenting some not in the script logic is one of the flaws of the Lord of the Rings, but also it's positives. I mean, it's nice to be able to read into something unseen. I've always valued my own ability to understand a story according to my imagination than a thoroughly and close-ended one.