Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: TV Discussion: The Rings of Power:
Clues pointing towards Annatar in season 2
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

DeadRabbits
Lorien


Feb 1, 4:32pm

Post #1 of 33 (1528 views)
Shortcut
Clues pointing towards Annatar in season 2 Can't Post

After rewatching season 1 for the second time, I listened to episode 8 of the official TRoP podcast with Felicia Day, where Payne & McKay shared their thoughts on the season finale. Along with a lot of other interesting insights, either Payne or McKay (I can't tell their voices apart, so I'm going to refer to them as "McPayne" to avoid miscrediting) revealed that Annatar will probably appear in season 2:

Felicia: “… we know Sauron is a shapeshifter, obviously. Is Sauron going to shapeshift into some other character or are we gonna see more Charlie?”

McPayne: “We don’t wanna say anything about this other than to say that the ring poem starts with three for the Elves, then it goes to seven for the Dwarves, it goes to nine for Men. We know that Celebrimbor was deceived, we know the Elves were deceived and I think that in season 2, you’re gonna see a lot of those stories. And a big part of that is what form might Sauron take that he can now deceive them in, given that his Halbrand identity has been blown, right? Although she [Galadriel] has at the end of season 1 not told anyone that.”

Charlie Vickers also hints at this in an interview with ScreenRant:
"We know Sauron takes on different shapes in this era. All I can say is maybe to that. Maybe we're going to do those things."

The showrunners have also confirmed that Sauron will be getting a more canonical story in season 2:
“Sauron can now just be Sauron. Like Tony Soprano or Walter White. He’s evil, but complexly evil. We felt like if we did that in season one, he’d overshadow everything else. So the first season is like Batman Begins, and the The Dark Knight is the next movie, with Sauron maneuvering out in the open. We’re really excited. Season two has a canonical story. There may well be viewers who are like, ‘This is the story we were hoping to get in season one!’ In season two, we’re giving it to them.”

All in all, this pretty much confirms that Sauron will use another appearance when assisting in the making of the remaining 16 rings, and that he will use his fair guise (given the "canonical" approach" of season 2) when doing so, although Amazon might not have the permission to use the name "Annatar" (unless they cut some special deal with Tolkien Estate). This probably points towards that another actor has been cast to play Sauron's fair form.


We already know that season 2 will be centered around Sauron the same way as season 1 was centered around Galadriel, and that Sauron will get his "origin story" in season 2. That means that Charlie Vickers most likely will continue to feature as Sauron, but that he this time around will share his duties with some other, not yet revealed, actor.

Who knows, maybe we'll see a third actor portraying Sauron's "terrible shape" in the last season?

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Junesong
Rohan


Feb 1, 5:11pm

Post #2 of 33 (1440 views)
Shortcut
Charlie in prosthetics [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd love to see Charlie stay in the role but take on different forms like Dwarf or Elf or Man. I'd rather see him disguised than see him recast for those moments.

Either way I expect Vickers to stay in the show.

"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


MerlinEngine
Bree


Feb 6, 2:40am

Post #3 of 33 (1208 views)
Shortcut
What a tremendous character Sauron is in SA [In reply to] Can't Post

And what terrible shame that the showrunners felt the need to "fix" that. I don't believe they can even begin to do Sauron's story justice in S02 after having butchered it so in S01. Saying stuff like "Sauron can now just be Sauron" is borderline offensive. Utterly disappointing.


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 6, 2:49am

Post #4 of 33 (1204 views)
Shortcut
Translation [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Saying stuff like "Sauron can now just be Sauron" is borderline offensive. Utterly disappointing.


Allow me to translate: "We [messed] up. We know that, but forgive us if we spin it otherwise. We'll be more canonical in Season 2 like we should have been this year, but we love our Message more than the story."


mcmojo
Bree

Feb 7, 5:47pm

Post #5 of 33 (1106 views)
Shortcut
Message? [In reply to] Can't Post

What message would that be?


Junesong
Rohan


Feb 7, 6:33pm

Post #6 of 33 (1102 views)
Shortcut
"Forget it, Jake. It's The Culture War." [In reply to] Can't Post

 

"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


TFP
Rivendell


Feb 8, 4:16pm

Post #7 of 33 (1037 views)
Shortcut
Annatar? [In reply to] Can't Post

I think they've painted themselves into a bit of a corner, honestly.

Firstly, they've already used the 'Sauron is in disguise, unknown to both the audience and characters', routine. I'm not sure they can employ it again without it seeming samey.

Secondly, Galadriel already knows that Sauron is back and is interested in forging rings. I really can't think why she's going to want to keep that a secret.

So e.g. if Sauron were to [I wish 'wrought' had a present tense form] e.g. get himself a new 'fair form' disguise and use it to, say, infiltrate Khazad-dûm, with a view to forging the seven [though, canonically speaking, the seven were also forged in Eregion], that would IMO seem samey and lame - surely all of the 'free peoples' should have been told to be extra vigilant/looking out for a return of Sauron? And if He were to go back to Eregion, that'd be even worse, right?


Owlyross
Rohan


Feb 9, 9:30am

Post #8 of 33 (988 views)
Shortcut
Galadriel and secrets [In reply to] Can't Post

She's already kept that secret. Whether through shame or through fear, she doesn't tell anyone who Halbrand is, she simply says "don't treat with Halbrand". Only Elrond guesses that he isn't who he says he is. Celebrimbor has no clue.

And let's not forget that Galadriel is already the show's version of the boy who cried wolf with regard to the 'return of Sauron'. So there's no reason why a Dwarf Lord from the East or an elven master from Valinor couldn't be introduced to help Celebrimbor develop his craft further.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)


Junesong
Rohan


Feb 9, 12:26pm

Post #9 of 33 (967 views)
Shortcut
Cannon [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's worth remembering that ROP has shown itself to be far more concerned with the "film cannon" of Jackson's Middle Earth than with Tolkien's "book cannon".

This makes sense. Lots of fans out there who only know and care for the films. Lots of fans of the books (Hobbit and LOTR) out there too.

Not TONS of deep lore 2nd Age fans out there. So I get where they're aiming and why.

With that in mind - they are in a pretty cool position to connect the dots from Tolkien's faux history into a compelling narrative that dots those big moments we know they're aiming for.

I wouldn't worry about how those things might contradict the second age lore. I don't think that's really relevant. (To the show)

And I think that's how it should be.

"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


TFP
Rivendell


Feb 9, 1:55pm

Post #10 of 33 (951 views)
Shortcut
The c word [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think it's worth remembering that ROP has shown itself to be far more concerned with the "film cannon" of Jackson's Middle Earth than with Tolkien's "book cannon".

This makes sense. Lots of fans out there who only know and care for the films. Lots of fans of the books (Hobbit and LOTR) out there too.

Not TONS of deep lore 2nd Age fans out there. So I get where they're aiming and why.

With that in mind - they are in a pretty cool position to connect the dots from Tolkien's faux history into a compelling narrative that dots those big moments we know they're aiming for.

I wouldn't worry about how those things might contradict the second age lore. I don't think that's really relevant. (To the show)

And I think that's how it should be.


I'm always reluctant to use it in general, it's fraught with danger.

Anyway, as far as I know this - from Unfinished Tales - is the closest thing that exists to a definitive book depiction of the Sauron/Galadriel relationship, I guess the parenthesised bit being Christopher's commentary:


Quote
He perceived at once that Galadriel would be his chief adversary and obstacle, and he endeavoured therefore to placate her, bearing her scorn with outward patience and courtesy. [No explanation is offered in this rapid outline of why Galadriel scorned Sauron, unless she saw through his disguise, or of why, if she did perceive his true nature, she permitted him to remain in Eregion.]


There is plenty of scope within this scant text for something like the show's story to be the reason for this "scorn", plenty, but I suppose what I am struggling with, in the show, is why Galadriel wouldn't at least try very hard to convince people that H = S.


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 9, 5:25pm

Post #11 of 33 (936 views)
Shortcut
Canon [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think it's worth remembering that ROP has shown itself to be far more concerned with the "film cannon" of Jackson's Middle Earth than with Tolkien's "book cannon".

This makes sense. Lots of fans out there who only know and care for the films. Lots of fans of the books (Hobbit and LOTR) out there too.

I don't mind this aspect of Rings of Power. The hugely popular MCU through Endgame, for example, uses the comic book characters but does not always closely hew to the original stories. That's okay with me because I completely ignore comics, have no love or loyalty to them, and treat them more as apocrypha in my head-canon. I don't want to have to read the comics to understand the film stories. After Endgame, however, the MCU writing has fallen off a sheer cliff wall. Writing matters, which I'm about to address in a terse reply to another post to follow. So like ROP, I have no enthusiasm toward the MCU of late.

Also, I'm sure you know this, and it's just a typo, so I'll just point out for anyone who might be unintentionally influenced by the unfortunately common typo for 'Canon' to think the correct spelling is like the ballistic artillery device, it's not. Canonical -> Canon.


(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Feb 9, 5:39pm)


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 9, 5:36pm

Post #12 of 33 (933 views)
Shortcut
Agency [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
She's already kept that secret. Whether through shame or through fear...


So many people make the same mistake of thinking about fictional characters as if they have their own agency. They don't. They are at the utter mercy of the authors and writing, whether organic or not. Writers are more powerful than Eru and can cause far more damage than the Ainur. The writing was simply extraordinarily untalented and bad. And to speak in her defense as if Galadriel had some agency, like Jessica Rabbit, it was not her fault, they just wrote her that way.


Junesong
Rohan


Feb 9, 5:48pm

Post #13 of 33 (919 views)
Shortcut
According to who? [In reply to] Can't Post

"The writing was simply extraordinarily untalented and bad."
According to who? I've seen all the episodes four times now and I loved most of the writing. Even the writing for Galadriel. I'll agree the take on her character was a bit unexpected and some of the writing was a bit strained at times for her character but I loved where the arc went in the end. Thought it was really clever actually - especially in relation to the film canon (thanks for the spelling tip, I actually didn't know that.)

I know it's not according to you - you haven't watched the show.

Is the writing extraordinarily untalented and bad according to the people you've watched and asked?

Would you agree - if we pause this ROP conversation for a second - that writing is subjective? Some of my favorite authors have been called "unreadable" by my peers, or my professors, or my students. Some of my favorite writing now I hated when I was younger and first reading.

All this to say - in a situation where adaption and writing are deeply personal and subjective things AND when you haven't watched the show for yourself, why would you take such a strong stance on this?

What do you think? Have you ever watched something or read something and loved it only to turn around and see people on the internet saying it's the worst thing ever? I have. I think it's one of the best things about art. People don't even agree about the greatness of The Godfather, or War and Peace, or Shakespeare. Why would they need to agree about this show?

I don't need critical consensus on the things I love. I don't need anyone's consensus.


"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 9, 6:47pm

Post #14 of 33 (907 views)
Shortcut
xjective [In reply to] Can't Post

I watched quite a bit of ROP... in the form of promos, teasers trailers, trailers, extended clips, numerous self-serving articles from the access media, and critical reviews - not to mention reading all the posts here about what people liked or not about it and balancing that against everything else. Actually watching the show at this point would be thoroughly redundant. With so few episodes, I may have spent at least as much time not watching it as would watching it. As I've said, I don't want to give Amazon any boost in their metrics, and not because I think the writing is poor or because it's an unfaithful adaptation, but because of their reprehensible treatment out of the gate of the fans in response to criticism that also spilled out into communities like this one with name calling that continues even recently, even here.

One could say that by definition all evaluations are subjective, but I'm not absolutist that way. There's a spectrum from exquisite to repulsive, and I think that the likelihood of objectivity increases with the sample of criticism, so long as bots, for example, are not artificially corrupting the sample. With that caveat said, Rotten Tomatoes says the Rings of Power audience score is 38%. Critics score is amusingly transposed at 83% and it would be naive to think that score isn't just as influenced by bots in the ratings wars. So perhaps it's corruption balanced, and it seems Rotten Tomatoes is inclined to lean on the scale in favor of the studios.

I've enjoyed plenty of cheesy shows that got bad ratings. But even as I enjoy them, I will admit when the critics are right and continue to enjoy it for what it is despite that. It sounds much the same for you.

I hear there are "hate-watch" parties now, which I suppose is at the extreme end of watching bad shows. More mildly, people watch "Plan 9 From Outer Space" by director Ed Wood, who got a biopic made about him starring Johnny Dep, to have a good laugh at a bad show. Some things have turned into cult classics like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Night of the Living Dead. Quentin Tarantino actually says "'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' is one of the few perfect movies ever made." I have some subjective doubts there, but I've seen it and wouldn't deny myself the cultural exposure. Rings of Power isn't that kind of art, but falls across the mid-line somewhere closer to Plan 9 than Citizen Kane, as 38% might indicate. If I had more time, I'd look all of those up on Rotten Tomatoes out of curiosity to see how they actually compare. ;)

I think Shakespeare is overrated. I wish the theater would get over the obsession. Mind you, I have a complete set of leather-bound Shakespeare books, yet I still feel that way. ;)


(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Feb 9, 6:58pm)


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Feb 9, 8:50pm

Post #15 of 33 (887 views)
Shortcut
The 38% Rotten Tomatoes score means nothing [In reply to] Can't Post

Although this takes a bit of learning. If you look at the data, almost every review gives the show a rating of about 1 (minimum) or 5 (maximum), with very little between those extremes. If you've had training in statistics, this is recognized as an extreme bimodal distribution. This means that at best the sample is from two different populations; in a non-random sampling procedure like this it would indicate the possibility of heavy bias and thus cannot be considered as a representative sample. In addition, many of the negative reviews simply copied the comments of others, meaning that the reviews were not independent. Add to this the fact that Rotten Tomatoes reviews are not a random sample to begin with, and that extreme bias against ROP was present long before the show was even released (with people on the internet using phrases such as "this mess", "this dumpster fire", and "this train wreck" a full seven months before the first episode was aired), the 38% statistic is actually pretty meaningless.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.






Junesong
Rohan


Feb 9, 9:42pm

Post #16 of 33 (878 views)
Shortcut
Sounds like a bad system [In reply to] Can't Post

I never asked why you're not watching. We've talked about that. I understand your reasons.

I was actually asking why you'd take such a strong stance on something that you're admittedly not interested in watching?

As for your take on subjective vs objective art I think we broadly agree.

Some red flags for me seem to be that you have reasons for believing critics or audience scores when you agree with them. And you seem to have reasons for disbelieving them when you don't. With a system like that I'm not sure you'll ever find yourself in a situation where you change your mind on something, or find yourself in a situation where you decide you're wrong about something. And that's a shame. I've found some of my best interactions with art have been those instances where I've been wrong. Usually because I've fallen victim to marketing (my expectations don't align with the perceived experience) or because I'm letting my bias get in the way (saying things like, "Nah, I don't like movies like that." or "Nah, I saw one of that director's other movies and it was boring..." etc) Even Jackson's LOTR films were a huge miss for me when I first saw them. I hated them. Thought they were a travesty. I've grown to love them. I realize I wasn't watching the movies at all at first, I was only frustrating myself by trying to watch a film that wasn't there. It was my ideas, and preferences, and my own special relationship with Tolkien that was getting in my way of seeing what Jackson had actually made.
Everything is super personal. Especially art. Especially adaptation. We create an illusion of objectivity around art because of school and critics associations and awards and all the rest of it. But it's just that - an illusion.

That's why you can feel Shakespeare is overrated. It's a legitimate take and a deeply personal one. I love that its rooted in YOU and not swayed either way by the establishment, or the school system, or pop culture, or historians. Had we lived in his time in history it would have been pretty common to find people shrugging their shoulders and rolling their eyes at his works. And rightly so.

I'm ok with people hating ROP. I've heard some compelling reasons to do so - although I don't agree with them. What I don't buy are the people who talk about it as a categorical failure. An abomination recognized by every "reasonable" person as trash with those of us who disagree somehow being hoodwinked or being willfully obtuse. Or perhaps just having bad taste. That - to me - seems untethered from reality. But it sounds A LOT like something the culture war would say.

My two cents, cast into the void, is that the show is actually extremely ordinary. If it had come out a year before the culture war destroyed everyone's brains I don't think anyone other than the hardcore Tolkien fans in places like this would even be talking about it. The fact that it has become this big a star in the shallow-thinking-olympics is actually pretty mind blowing.

"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 9, 10:10pm

Post #17 of 33 (873 views)
Shortcut
Stats [In reply to] Can't Post

Half my college major was math. I took a full year of Stats. Got the highest final exam score in the third term. So I know what you're saying.

That said, you forced me to look up more ratings - congrat's.

Critic / Audience:

Citizen Kane: 99% / 90%
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: 37% / 58%
Plan 9 From Outer Space: 66% / 45%

And just to include Quentin since I cited him on Chainsaw:

Kill Bill 1: 85% / 81%
Kill Bill 2: 84% / 89%
Pulp Fiction: 92% / 96%

In this system, however unbalanced, corrupt, bot-infested, and self-selecting or confirmation biased, it's valid to compare the relative weights on an incorrectly adjusted linear scale even when the true weight is not known. In my admittedly subjective experience, and knowing the general respect for each of those movies, the scores look relatively okay to me, though I don't know how critics find Plan 9 better than Chainsaw. Quentin might have something to say on that.


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 9, 10:36pm

Post #18 of 33 (867 views)
Shortcut
Why [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I never asked why you're not watching. We've talked about that. I understand your reasons.

I was actually asking why you'd take such a strong stance on something that you're admittedly not interested in watching?


The reason for the reiteration in my first paragraph was to answer why: The treatment of fans. I am interested, just not on Amazon's terms that I be a hypocrite in supporting their behavior.

I apologize for not responding to the rest in depth. I'm just out of time. I understand it, I think my mind is open without prejudice, and I got a good laugh out of "the culture war destroyed everyone's brains."


Junesong
Rohan


Feb 9, 10:39pm

Post #19 of 33 (863 views)
Shortcut
Cheers :) [In reply to] Can't Post

Despite how argumentative we likely appear to the mods and other posters on these boards I actually really enjoy our exchanges and I really like chatting with you.

Thanks

"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Feb 10, 5:13am

Post #20 of 33 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: Stats [In reply to] Can't Post

While those examples are interesting, being older movies they are not very relevant to the question at hand, i.e., why the ROP audience score was so skewed from the critics' score and why the distribution was so extremely bimodal. Note that none of those films came close to the disparity of ROP between the critics and the audience scores, a whopping 45%. It seems that audience scores today may be much more reflective of cultural divisions than of the actual quality of the material. As an appropriate example, consider Disney's new Willow adaptation. The distribution of the most recent 100 audience scores is as follows:

Five stars: 80

One star: 13

Everything else: 7

So again there is a clear extreme bimodal distribution, with probable exaggeration at both ends due to people being either pre-invested or pre-judging the series from a cultural view (there is a lesbian relationship). This type of culture war judgement simply wasn't apparent,say, five years ago; audience reviews of Thor:Ragnarok did not harp on Tessa Thompson being cast as the traditional blonde, blue-eyed Valkyrie.

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.






DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 10, 8:19am

Post #21 of 33 (809 views)
Shortcut
Tessa Thompson [In reply to] Can't Post

I know where science ends and when a discussion is headed toward a metaphorical proof about how physics can be believably applied to The Hobbit Goblin Town physics-free video game scene. Analysis here goes way down the rabbit hole of distraction. I'm not buying. ;)

Thor:Ragnarok was a great movie and Tessa Thompson is fantastic in the role, organically written with no forced agenda or grand message with which to hit people on the nose and distract from the fun. Whether now, five, or the years as old as film there has been no problem with stories written and acted well by the likes of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), Okoye (Danai Gurira), Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), Zoe Washburne (Gina Torres), Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), Celie (Whoopi Goldberg), Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols/Zoe Saldana), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), and a few hundred more women over many decades with whatever differentiating attributes they posses. Unless you're Jennifer Lawrence, this has been going on for a long time.


Owlyross
Rohan


Feb 10, 10:21am

Post #22 of 33 (793 views)
Shortcut
Have you watched the show yet? [In reply to] Can't Post

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)


Owlyross
Rohan


Feb 10, 10:23am

Post #23 of 33 (796 views)
Shortcut
"I hear, I've read, I'm told" [In reply to] Can't Post

So we can quite simply discount your opinion on this because you haven't watched the show in full, you haven't engaged with it in any positive way, and you are purely seeking out opinions which support your already established idea (which has come from somewhere) that the show is trash. Again, why do you continue to opine so confidently on something you haven't actually watched?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)


Owlyross
Rohan


Feb 10, 10:29am

Post #24 of 33 (786 views)
Shortcut
Why do you feel the writing in the MCU has fallen? [In reply to] Can't Post

For me, the writing in the TV shows is some of the best we've seen. Falcon and the Winter Solider gave us a hugely impressive exploration of reluctant heroism and prejudice in society. Wandavision did an excellent job of showing how someone could think they were doing the right thing only to become a villain. I wasn't a fan of Loki, but it was excellently constructed and written, I just thought it went nowhere. Some of the films were a bit ropey, but that's the case across the whole MCU.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)


DGHCaretaker
Rohan

Feb 15, 8:27pm

Post #25 of 33 (544 views)
Shortcut
Definition/Perspective [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Forget it, Jake. It's The Culture War.

It's often asked to define "woke." This video makes a fair attempt to provide more than one perspective. I thought you might be one to appreciate or watch it more openly even if you disagree. It better words some of the things I've tried to express.

From "The Critical Drinker," Will Jordan: Published Scottish Author, YouTuber, Reviewer/Critic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhRC6PQbCDo


(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Feb 15, 8:28pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.