Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Physics of The Hobbit...again
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

jtarkey
Rohan


Oct 13 2013, 10:53am

Post #1 of 77 (1815 views)
Shortcut
Physics of The Hobbit...again Can't Post

Now, I understand that the physics involved in AUJ have been analyzed, and "proven" to be accurate. However, I'm curious to see who really feels that the stunts pulled in AUJ are feasible.

I find myself frustrated with the fact that those who feel AUJ is unrealistic are immediately shut down due to this physics argument. But I'm wondering about probability. Who here feels they can get on to a bridge, with 13 other individuals, and fall 1000 feet down a cavern without a single causality? Who thinks they can ride down rapids, inside barrels, whilst fighting an enemy?

I welcome discouragement because I honestly don't care. I firmly believe that the action sequences in AUJ were totally unrealistic. I won't budge on that. I also understand this is a fantasy film. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if these things can ACTUALLY happen. I just find the physics argument to be totally moot. It doesn't matter if these things CAN happen. A lot of unlikely things are possible. However, I feel the likelihood of these antics is a little past the realm of believability, especially compared to the style displayed in the LOTR trilogy..

Rip me apart if you like. I won't reply in this thread.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"

(This post was edited by jtarkey on Oct 13 2013, 10:54am)


Arannir
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 10:59am

Post #2 of 77 (1061 views)
Shortcut
Although I found AUJ to be an astonishing movie... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I did hate the fall into Goblintown and the ride on the bridge. In general I liked the idea of the falling bridge, but this should have looked more realistic imho and would still have been great to watch.

The barrels I do not mind yet... Kind of glad they are open, I guess I might have decided to do that myself if I had to shoot the movie.

Gladly, those scenes did not really get me out of the movie as much, so it did not really diminish my enjoyment.

Btw, I know there are some (not many) here that shut down criticism quite harshly. But please do not overlook those who engage in controversial discussions politely :)



“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.

(This post was edited by Arannir on Oct 13 2013, 11:03am)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 11:05am

Post #3 of 77 (1018 views)
Shortcut
It's statistics rather than physics that annoys me [In reply to] Can't Post

13 dwarves vs a few thousand orcs, three trolls and three stone giants in several over the top situations and no-one comes out with a scratch. You'd expect at least one dwarf to be limping by the end. But they're just cartoon characters, they get crushed into a wall or smacked in the face with a mace and then they're fine again in the next scene.

It makes me wonder what will be so powerful in TABA to actually hinder these indestructible dwarves? Armored hedgehog trolls?


Joe20
Lorien


Oct 13 2013, 11:11am

Post #4 of 77 (966 views)
Shortcut
Agree 110% [In reply to] Can't Post

I love the movie, but will I will forever believe that it would have been better to have stayed consistent with the world that we saw in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. And yes, there were some over the top moments scattered throughout those films (Legolas etc.), but as a whole I think we can all agree that the combat, violence and stunts were for the most part firmly grounded in reality.

People can say that stuff like the falling into the goblin caverns is physically possible till the cows come home, but come on.. it just wouldn't happen.


Eleniel
Grey Havens


Oct 13 2013, 11:40am

Post #5 of 77 (982 views)
Shortcut
Cartoonish... [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, exactly...the action sequences, aided and abetted by digital doubles for the characters do give a cartoon feel to the action. It's another example of Jackson trying to include the epic drama of LotR whilst retaining a fairy tale, children's movie appeal, and for me it jars badly...


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 13 2013, 12:05pm

Post #6 of 77 (971 views)
Shortcut
At the end of the day, does it really matter? [In reply to] Can't Post

The physics argument isn't a moot point, and neither is the probability argument. They're completely separate, but they are also both *correct* arguments.

In fact, the two arguments are actually linked. All the physics argument is doing is observing what happens and theorizes about the underlying process. Then, having found the process, others (like yourself) use it in the sense of probability to predict what will happen next, and the likelihood of it occurring. It ultimately comes down to probability vs likelihood.

It ultimately boils down to this: the events in The Hobbit can physically occur, but may (or may not) be unlikely to occur. And that is a very valid conclusion. So where does the discussion go from there?

I think it also comes down to how each individual views the world (physics and statistics, especially). Lets look at the jelly bean jar example. How would one find the probability of drawing a red jelly bean from a jar, mixed with red, yellow and blue beans? One person may start by knowing the proportion of each different coloured bean, while another infers the proportion of each coloured bean by sampling the jar itself. Each could draw their own conclusion - the probablist would conclude the red jelly bean is likely to be chosen more, while the statistician thinks it is the yellow bean. Neither is right or wrong. And the same is true in this discussion.

My brain hurts after all of that.



Quote
Rip me apart if you like. I won't reply in this thread.


Why make the thread then, if you're not going to partake in discussion?



(This post was edited by DanielLB on Oct 13 2013, 12:12pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 12:35pm

Post #7 of 77 (887 views)
Shortcut
To be honest, I don't care [In reply to] Can't Post

As long as I enjoy what is shown in a fantasy film, it really doesn't bother me whether something is 'realistic' or not. There were many equally 'unrealistic' scenes in LOTR, too, and some were worse visually than anything shown in AUJ.

And I very much enjoyed the Goblin Town sequence.


jtarkey
Rohan


Oct 13 2013, 12:36pm

Post #8 of 77 (938 views)
Shortcut
Fine...I'll reply just this once. [In reply to] Can't Post

The problem with the physics argument is that its sole purpose is to dismiss those who feel the action in AUJ is unrealistic.

This simply isn't true.

There are stories of people falling from amazing heights and surviving. I believe it does come down to probability, plain and simple.

I get that some people don't mind this aspect of the film. But If someone told me the action in AUJ is on the same level of believability that FOTR is at...

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Oct 13 2013, 12:40pm

Post #9 of 77 (950 views)
Shortcut
Physics, Reality, and Discussion [In reply to] Can't Post

As the author of the symposium essay "The Physics of The Hobbit" I obviously have a lot to say on this matter. And I should make clear at the outset that all of this is intended to be polite discussion; the intent is not to "shut down" anyone, but rather to discuss the issues without bias one way or the other. There are several main points that are relevant, so I'd like to give my opinion on each.

First, a major motivation for doing the physics was the fact that people were seeing what they wanted to see in Goblin Town and other scenes, and criticizing the movie on those grounds. People wrote that the Dwarves "fell thousands of feet off a cliff and survived", for example, which is obviously impossible. Even within this thread, several responders have given examples that are simply untrue and that have been discussed in previous threads. The Dwarves were not crushed into the side of a mountain, and Thorin was not hit in the face with a mace. Whenever we criticize something we need to stick to the facts; failure to do so is to commit the "straw man" fallacy in logic. The Dwarves rode a 4-level wooden bridge approximately 750 feet down a cavern, sliding on limestone part of the way and free falling for 2-3 second intervals. If analyzing the scene based on the facts and not peoples' assumptions upset some apple carts, then I'm sorry, but it could not be helped.

Second, there seems to be a persistent belief among some members that the physics of LOTR was all, or nearly all, within the realm of possibility or probability. This simply isn't true. "Gandalf and the Balrog", as I showed in the essay, is physically impossible. Uruk-hai lifting a siege ladder to the top of the wall as they did in TTT is just as impossible. Legolas shield surfing down the wall and then stepping off at the bottom with no forward inertia at all is impossible as well. And how does Aragorn survive with no major injuries after falling off a cliff so high that his friends immediately assume that he's dead without going to check? Falling into water is like falling onto concrete, despite what "common sense" might tell us. Note that none of those scenes bothered me when I saw LOTR; Gandalf's fall with the Balrog is actually among my favorite scenes in the whole trilogy.

This brings us to The Hobbit. The stunts that occurred in the film, while staying within the laws of physics, were often exaggerated "Perils of Pauline" type things. But this was done deliberately, for reasons that the writers have already explained. "The Hobbit" book is much more whimsical and fairytale-ish than LOTR, and thus the writers included scenes that were reminiscent of films such as Indiana Jones, which in turn were inspired by the old RKO serials, in which houses fell around people and women were rescued after being tied to railroad tracks. In other words, the lighter tone of "The Hobbit" allowed the writers (in their opinion) to have more fun with the action scenes. Some viewers were upset by this, and that is their right. Other viewers truly enjoyed those scenes; where I live the consensus view was that "The Hobbit" was more enjoyable than LOTR, and the reason was the action scenes.

As I said in the essay, the interplay between physical possibility, probability, and suspension of disbelief often depends on the individual. Skyfall and Ghost Protocol broke the laws of physics and presented scenes that, while perhaps physically possible, were wildly improbable. Any physicist can tell you that "James Bond would be dead within the first 15 minutes of any of the movies." This doesn't prevent people from enjoying those films. The discussions we've had on this forum were not meant to change peoples' opinions, but rather to explain the physics and do a fair analysis. The overwhelming response to my essay was that people had learned something about the physics of free fall, and were thus in a better position to understand scenes like "Goblin Town". I hope that the same happens with "Barrels Out Of Bond".

As I said above, the analysis is intended to promote discussion. But if you say "I won't budge on that" and that the physics is "moot", what then is the point?

Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 13 2013, 1:28pm

Post #10 of 77 (853 views)
Shortcut
Why, indeed? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Why make the thread then, if you're not going to
partake in discussion?





I too do not understand what the point is. To my mind it comes across as a hissy fit, and undermines the validity of the contention being made (which I at least partly agree with).



'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Nira
Lorien


Oct 13 2013, 1:38pm

Post #11 of 77 (846 views)
Shortcut
Perception of art is everything and varies between individuals [In reply to] Can't Post

A stunt can be physically possible and even probable, but if the audience is taken out of the story by a perceived error then the art is diminished. That is a valid criticism.

I greatly appreciate an erudite physics discussion, especially about LOTR and The Hobbit. I feel the essays were thoughtfully done and I did not take any of it as disrespectful. That said, and with all my respect, the essays did come across to me pedantic for the depth of the material presented.

"Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?" -Samwise


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 13 2013, 1:40pm

Post #12 of 77 (866 views)
Shortcut
I don't think that is anyone's intention at all. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The problem with the physics argument is that its sole purpose is to dismiss those who feel the action in AUJ is unrealistic..


And I'm sorry if you feel that way. Though, by the sounds of it, your opinion is the same that has been floating around a while, with regards to those who like and dislike AUJ - people that dislike the film feel they're being put down for disliking the film, and vise versa. Frequently, on an online fan forum, people are going to disagree. And people on either side of an argument will be persistent in their views and opinions. At the end of the day, we all need to get along, and agree to disagree (no one is wrong, everyone is right).

For what it's worth, the "physics argument" is simply proving that it the events of The Hobbit can physically happen. I don't think it is anyone's intention to dismiss the likelihood of it happening, nor dismiss anyone's opinion on probability and likelihood.

And in my opinion, having a physics background, I do agree with what has been said in the past. However, the production team should've shown the Dwarves more battered, bruised and scared. So I agree with both "arguments": the physics works, it can happen, but the odds aren't in your favour (if it does happen), and the production team should've shot the scene differently to better represent injury while falling.

Smile



(This post was edited by DanielLB on Oct 13 2013, 1:44pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 2:12pm

Post #13 of 77 (823 views)
Shortcut
However, it must be borne in mind [In reply to] Can't Post

That the Dwarves are a different species from humans – maybe much tougher – and perhaps do not display injuries in the same way as humans would do?

I find scenes such as Aragorn falling from the top of a very high battlement (along with Gimli) and surviving at all much more implausible. (This while ALL the Elves on the battlement were killed, and while Legolas ridiculously slid down from them). Again, though, in this instance I just suspended disbelief and didn't let the scene affect my overall enjoyment of TTT.


In Reply To
And in my opinion, having a physics background, I do agree with what has been said in the past. However, the production team should've shown the Dwarves more battered, bruised and scared. So I agree with both "arguments": the physics works, it can happen, but the odds aren't in your favour (if it does happen), and the production team should've shot the scene differently to better represent injury while falling.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Oct 13 2013, 2:12pm)


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Oct 13 2013, 2:22pm

Post #14 of 77 (817 views)
Shortcut
Isn't that half the fun of being a geek? [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
the essays did come across to me pedantic for the depth of the material presented.


They came across as fun and geeky to me; all the more so because they were written by someone with a physics background. I personally get a kick out of anyone who applies their real life expertise to the geeky passions in their lives.

As some have already said, just because someone doesn't agree about something it doesn't meant they're trying to 'shut down' the opinions of others, it's simply
presenting an opposing opinion. Both are valid and both are parts of good discussion and debate. Even things that are totally physically possible take some people out of the AUJ movie (bird poop, anyone? Laugh) just as more fantastical things don't take other people out of the movie. It all boils down to personal preference, or perception as you said Nira.


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





(This post was edited by Altaira on Oct 13 2013, 2:23pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 13 2013, 2:50pm

Post #15 of 77 (796 views)
Shortcut
Agreed, but perhaps a couple of the Dwarves could have had ... [In reply to] Can't Post

A cut across their cheek (à la Arwen), a black eye, and torn clothes, just to make it a bit more obvious. That may have added a believability-factor to the scene/s. Would that have been better?

Though, there is a clear difference in their appearance before and after both falls in Goblintown. Nori's hair is all askew after the first fall, and then looks like he is in pain after the second fall. Plus, they're all markedly dirty after this scene. Beorn's house might've been a good opportunity to see some of them recuperate from the fall. I wouldn't want any permanent injuries - that's when it would become to OTT, because it would hinder the characters and storyline.

I wonder what Dwarves are actually made of. I reckon they've got stone-lined skin. WinkSmile



(This post was edited by DanielLB on Oct 13 2013, 2:54pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 2:53pm

Post #16 of 77 (783 views)
Shortcut
Who knows? [In reply to] Can't Post

I wonder if they are even mammals…


In Reply To
I wonder what Dwarves are actually made of. I reckon they've got stone-lined skin. WinkSmile



Welsh hero
Gondor


Oct 13 2013, 3:09pm

Post #17 of 77 (777 views)
Shortcut
Anything odd physic wise can be explained away. [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf did it

-Irfon

Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 13 2013, 3:12pm

Post #18 of 77 (763 views)
Shortcut
Well said Altaira! I love the analytical applied to the films [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Quote
the essays did come across to me pedantic for the depth of the material presented.


They came across as fun and geeky to me; all the more so because they were written by someone with a physics background. I personally get a kick out of anyone who applies their real life expertise to the geeky passions in their lives.

As some have already said, just because someone doesn't agree about something it doesn't meant they're trying to 'shut down' the opinions of others, it's simply
presenting an opposing opinion. Both are valid and both are parts of good discussion and debate. Even things that are totally physically possible take some people out of the AUJ movie (bird poop, anyone? Laugh) just as more fantastical things don't take other people out of the movie. It all boils down to personal preference, or perception as you said Nira.




I too found it very fun, especially since Dweller's ideas sort of stood upside-down the ideas that Gandalf catching the Balrog "looked" more plausible than the Dwarves falling...but its quite the opposite!

I wholeheartedly agree on how great so many of the views here are when real-life knowledge gets applied (and I think the topic simply lends itself to extensive written analysis.) Subjectivity applies to all visual media, especially in fantasy I suppose, but I'm a geek in my bones I guess, as I really like considering the nuts and bolts of these things. SmileCool

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





QuackingTroll
Valinor


Oct 13 2013, 3:23pm

Post #19 of 77 (801 views)
Shortcut
In LotR it was easy for me to look away when Legolas surfed on his shield or jumped on his horse... [In reply to] Can't Post

In LotR these were silly moments that one could basically ignore and concentrate on other things. But in The Hobbit, these kinds of ridiculous acts have become heavily integrated into the scenes and occur so often that it's a detriment to those who prefer their action a little more subtle.

One of my favourite fights in LotR was between Aragorn and Lurtz (minus the shield throwing). Just a good one-on-one sword fight. I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that in The Hobbit.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Oct 13 2013, 3:24pm)


Bombadil
Half-elven


Oct 13 2013, 3:38pm

Post #20 of 77 (750 views)
Shortcut
Well, as Gandalf said.."Every Good Story deserves some [In reply to] Can't Post

Embellishment"
..so Bomby Feels that Bilbo Exaggerated alot!

Remember this a STORY
Bilbo's recollection of the Events
Colored by HIS Imagination (via Tolkien)

In a way, PJ's version of this Story is ALSO...
Exaggerated in the Most FUN WAY!

If everything was plausable?
Where is the Fun in
this Fantastic & Funny Film?


(This post was edited by Bombadil on Oct 13 2013, 3:41pm)


DwellerInDale
Rohan


Oct 13 2013, 3:47pm

Post #21 of 77 (776 views)
Shortcut
I understand your opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

It's interesting that you use the Lurtz-Aragorn fight as a counterexample. I know for a fact that some people thought that the fight looked pretty silly, because you have 1) a thrown shield that miraculously hits the tree just at the right place to avoid killing our hero; 2) a baddy who gets a huge dagger stuck through his leg, laughs about it, pulls out the dagger and licks the blood off; 3) the same baddy gets his arm chopped off and doesn't even blink-- like something out of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Another illustration that a scene being silly or ridiculous is often very subjective.


In Reply To
One of my favourite fights in LotR was between Aragorn and Lurtz (minus the shield throwing). Just a good one-on-one sword fight. I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that in The Hobbit.


Don't mess with my favorite female elf.




TheRealBeren
Rivendell

Oct 13 2013, 4:50pm

Post #22 of 77 (727 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit videogame, not film [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree. Hopefully the next one won't be such an embarrassment.


Avandel
Valinor

Oct 13 2013, 5:06pm

Post #23 of 77 (686 views)
Shortcut
Fine by me [In reply to] Can't Post

For me since the Hobbit is a fantasy film, and think PJ at least with AUJ is keeping some of the whimsy intact, and the fact that these are dwarves and a hobbit with a different bone structure - as well as the bouncing, hopping, climbing, elves in DOS - I don't even think about it. For me the LOTR shield skate and oliphaunt sequence pulled me out of the film, not because an elf would be incapable of the action, but I thought it injected a silly note where it was not appropriate.

The Hobbit on the other hand was "supposed to" have some whimsical moments. For me it's not that these races can't perform action X, it's whether the scene is "flowing" for me - for instance in trailer 1 the Legolas slide to threaten the dwarves is something I find off-putting - not because an elf couldn't slide and move very fast. But there are a couple of elf moves in trailer 1 that look too much Matrix, and makes me frown a bit. It's a different perspective than the physics.

"Who thinks they can ride down rapids, inside barrels, whilst fighting an enemy? " Me, definitely. Because they are DWARVES. In theory a race that has evolved in an environment of frequent rock falls, falls, tough conditions, constant hiking up and down with heavy loads - what is it Gimli says in LOTR, something about "sturdy dwarves being stone hard?" They have thicker craniums (head butt by way of greeting), denser bones, with heavy chests and heavily muscled arms and hands, must have strong legs as well (Thorin eventually gets up from getting thrown hard enough to break a human's back and skull - wasn't any water there to soften things up. Gimli heaves himself off a wall and survives chest-crushing weight, not to mention keeping up with Legolas and Aragorn tho much shorter). It's never brought up, but they in theory may even use air differently. (It's kind if like the sherpas of the Himalayas today that happily live in low oxygen conditions that would cause most people medical problems - plus the climbing sherpas seem to be enormously strong and haul back-breaking loads up the mountains).

- E.g.. dwarves in barrels could (in theory) just brace themselves, because they are a race with the physiology to do something like that and survive it - while handling a weapon, too. (Conversely our sturdy little hobbit has less weight, can fall farther more safely, like an insect can fall far unharmed.)

Think some of the issue is it's hard for us to imagine, as humans, being a completely different body type, and we haven't had a dwarf or elf boot camp to train us to think that way. So bring on the dwarves + 1 hobbit in barrels, can't wait to see that scene!


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens


Oct 13 2013, 5:48pm

Post #24 of 77 (646 views)
Shortcut
I feel its the CGI, because that, being shoot with old school methods... [In reply to] Can't Post

like de 1000 feet fall on a bridge, would have remained a 1000 feet fall on a bridge, but it would have looked better. I mean, look that scene in Willow, they are running in a charriot in a crazy speed and no one but the bad guys got injured. But all that you can see there its real, the charriot, weapons, all ofit,so it looks more plausible

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 13 2013, 6:07pm

Post #25 of 77 (637 views)
Shortcut
Thanks Dweller! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

As I said in the essay, the interplay between physical possibility, probability, and suspension of disbelief often depends on the individual. Skyfall and Ghost Protocol broke the laws of physics and presented scenes that, while perhaps physically possible, were wildly improbable. Any physicist can tell you that "James Bond would be dead within the first 15 minutes of any of the movies." This doesn't prevent people from enjoying those films. The discussions we've had on this forum were not meant to change peoples' opinions, but rather to explain the physics and do a fair analysis. The overwhelming response to my essay was that people had learned something about the physics of free fall, and were thus in a better position to understand scenes like "Goblin Town". I hope that the same happens with "Barrels Out Of Bond".

As I said above, the analysis is intended to promote discussion. But if you say "I won't budge on that" and that the physics is "moot", what then is the point?




Agreed. I too hope to have some insights from DoS. AngelicCool

Subjectivity always has a place in perceptions. 100% true. I'm still happy and proud that we have people like you who can give us a professional insight into what we see. As Altaira rightly said, that's part of the pleasure of Geekdom. And I believe Darkstone at times sports a nice footer quote about the tragedy of fantasy lovers who become territorial (and thus didactically closed-minded): and thus rather miss the point of the genre.

I would never want that to happen here.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!




First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 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.