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: Off Topic: Off Topic:
Domestically, TFA has made more money than all three Hobbit movies combined.
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

CaptainObvious
Rivendell

Feb 7 2016, 12:47am

Post #1 of 27 (1210 views)
Shortcut
Domestically, TFA has made more money than all three Hobbit movies combined. Can't Post

Has anyone thought of this? It also made more than Smaug did worldwide. Personally I hate The Force Awakens. I thought it was just a bad remake of Episode 4. If the Hobbit had only been cut right, I do think it would have made at least a couple hundred extra million. I think Peter Jackson shot enough to make a wonderful Hobbit film, but he also shot enough to make a bad one (The Battle of Five Armies Theatrical Version was a bad movie).

It irks me that anything helmed by Jar Jar Abrams would make more money than a Peter Jackson movie, but I guess that's just the way it is.


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Feb 7 2016, 1:15am

Post #2 of 27 (1116 views)
Shortcut
People went to see TFA before understanding it was so bad a movie [In reply to] Can't Post

This is just heavy marketing results, obtained because Hollywood has organized a media-buzz favorable to the movie instead of the social-media bashing they used against TH, whose main default has been to be made in antipods... and who saled far better far from the US.

D'you remember the Jar-Jar-Binks rumor launched against Radagast as soon as AUJ had been previewed ? Jar-Jar-Binks belongs to Star Wars franchise and that was a signature that the movie-making industry war had already begun against the kiwis.

As the original Star wars came out in my generation years, I did go to see that flick.

Ow. I'd never expected it to be so embarrassingly bad.
To cure myself I'll only have to buy the DVD of the old version, which really rocked.

That one is... simply inept.

I certainly won't spend days to go bashing TFA on forums, as some do here against TH, because my only desire is to keep away from that disgrace.
if you can read french forums, you'll find hundreds of posts reacting the same way, written by real people, not by appointed clones.


(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Feb 7 2016, 1:21am)


HeadingSouth
Bree


Feb 7 2016, 1:33am

Post #3 of 27 (1095 views)
Shortcut
You do realise [In reply to] Can't Post

that this is a Tolkien forum, which doesn't necessarily mean you have to like the films based on the books. Just like there are many people on Star Wars forums who like some films and not others.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Feb 7 2016, 1:43am

Post #4 of 27 (1090 views)
Shortcut
You do get that TFA was enormously well received? [In reply to] Can't Post

By both audiences and critics.

It's fine if you didn't like it, but don't act like all the people who went to see it and added to its box office take were somehow deceived. The vast majority of people (including myself) loved it.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Milieuterrien
Rohan

Feb 7 2016, 1:47am

Post #5 of 27 (1085 views)
Shortcut
I remember a time [In reply to] Can't Post

when forums, Tolkien's or otherwise, weren't already filled by people relentlessly posting generalities without any other effect than killing reflexion and observation and install boredom instead. That was still the case in LOTR's years. Not anymore now.

I've got no taste for the cynical struggles we find in so many forums now. Just epidermic nostalgia, and more frequently each year than before, sadness in the end.


Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell


Feb 7 2016, 2:13am

Post #6 of 27 (1059 views)
Shortcut
so? [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't understand the fixation on how much money The Hobbit or any other movie made. If you enjoy a movie, what does it matter? It's not like a higher box office return would have given us a sequel or prequel or whatnot. There are tons of awful movies that make tons of money (in my opinion, The Force Awakens doesn't fall into this category) and that's just how it happens.

But I agree - BOTFA wasn't that great, which is a shame. Yet I don't think if it was better it would have made more - a lot of casual viewers loved it as it was. I think the fans were its biggest critics. And we were the ones who were going to see it regardless of its quality. I saw it four times in the theater and I didn't even enjoy it.

Justice for Fili


Joe20
Lorien


Feb 7 2016, 3:37am

Post #7 of 27 (1024 views)
Shortcut
And rightfully so [In reply to] Can't Post

It's a far superior film


KingTurgon
Rohan


Feb 7 2016, 3:42am

Post #8 of 27 (1021 views)
Shortcut
In your opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd take all 3 Hobbit films over TFA, as would many I'm sure.


LSF
Gondor

Feb 7 2016, 3:45am

Post #9 of 27 (1011 views)
Shortcut
unfortunately [In reply to] Can't Post

unfortunately, box office is one of the go-to ways to determine if a film was successful. It is hard numbers that is easy to calculate and compare and all that.

But I'm with you on not caring how much money a film makes, as long as I like it. I'm not going to be annoyed at a movie for getting more money than one I love. (Though I did like Force Awakens a lot).

Though really, did anyone expect anything different from Star Wars? Especially with all the (over)marketing Disney did for it?


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Feb 7 2016, 6:53am

Post #10 of 27 (973 views)
Shortcut
Box office is tricky [In reply to] Can't Post

Sometimes it can give one a hint of the quality of the film (a high ending multiplier and sticking around in cinemas longer than usual is the thing to really look for here), but sometimes it speaks far more to the hype/marketing driving it, especially in the case of returning entries in well-known franchises (often, if they are generally disliked by the public, these films have huge opening weekends and are almost gone from the theaters by week four). In either case, serious bank can be made, so I have trouble with utilizing box office returns as a legitimate testament to a movie's quality. Just as a general example, Martin Scorsese's masterpiece (his best film, in my eyes) "Taxi Driver" has a lifetime gross of 28 million dollars (even with inflation in play, this is far under the movies about to get a nod) whereas four totally awful "Transformers" pictures have an average gross of 330 million. And that's gross.

Get it? Bah.

Bilbo: These are dark days.

Bofur: Dark days indeed.

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Feb 7 2016, 6:55am)


Avandel
Half-elven


Feb 7 2016, 8:41am

Post #11 of 27 (948 views)
Shortcut
Well, yes [In reply to] Can't Post

In the sense that I expected quite a fresh narrative. Overall in this case I found myself agreeing with critics who quite liked SW, but were taken aback at the same things I was.

I really liked SW and at the same time, I couldn't bring myself to pay for a second viewing. Because I had seen THAT movie many times before, more or less. So for whatever reasons movies do or don't make lots of money, I would choose any of the Hobbit films to be on a desert island with over TFA.


LSF
Gondor

Feb 7 2016, 8:52am

Post #12 of 27 (946 views)
Shortcut
I meant [In reply to] Can't Post

I meant if anyone expected anything different in terms of force awakens making lots of money


dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 7 2016, 9:13am

Post #13 of 27 (946 views)
Shortcut
Er... so what? [In reply to] Can't Post

Star Wars is an immensely popular series world-wide. And unlike the popularity of Middle Earth, which has a literary foundation stretching back decades before the films were even though of, Star Wars is all about the films. (I know there are spin-off novels now, but the films came first as an original story). It was some time since the last Star Wars films and they had a mixed reception: the reboot was preceded by enormous hype and everyone - committed fans, casual fans, people who'd vaguely heard of it, were on edge to see it and see what Disney had made of it.

I saw The Force Awakens with family and enjoyed it as a film, though I don't have any particular interest in the series. I saw The Hobbit and loved all three films - and would absolutely dispute you statement that BotFA was a bad film. I think it's a breathtaking film in both versions.

If The Hobbit films had failed at the box office this might be a point worth making but they didn't. They took an unimaginable amount of money at the box office. If something else took an even larger unimaginable amount of money it doesn't diminish the financial success of The Hobbit in any way. If you achieve a First Class degree with a particular set of marks and your friend also achieves the same degree but his marks are higher what does it matter? You still end up with the same degree....

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


AshNazg
Gondor


Feb 7 2016, 3:59pm

Post #14 of 27 (870 views)
Shortcut
I don't get the "remake of episode 4" criticism... [In reply to] Can't Post

Isn't that entirely intentional and part of the point of the whole series? That someone isolated on a desert planet is going to rise up and bring balance to the force - that is what the prophecy has foretold, and that's why we keep seeing history repeat its self - it's the central theme of the movies.

Episode 1 also intentionally mirrored episode 4. It's not lazy writing, it's intentional foreshadowing. Look here: https://youtu.be/k7ZW1gtCljs

Besides, there are probably more similarities between The Hobbit and LotR than between Episodes 4 and 7. There's nothing wrong with rehashing old stories, TFA and Jurassic World have proved that.

The reason TFA was better than The Hobbit, is because it stayed true to the familiar universe, it didn't go all digital, it used practical effects where possible, it stayed respectful to the franchise, it didn't try to one-up the previous films with ridiculous stunts, and the callbacks/references/easter-eggs didn't seem forced in (all things the prequels, and The Hobbit, did wrong).

As for "over-marketing" sure it was everywhere, this is Disney, but it was also very restrained. Going in to the film there were still a lot of questions - even after the movie there are a lot of questions. I never felt like I'd seen too much or had anything spoiled by the marketing - and the BO numbers show that this heavy marketing worked.

For The Hobbit, the marketing was lacking, a lot of it was poor quality and much of it spoiled the movie - we'd seen so much behind the scenes footage before release we'd practically seen everything before going in - we'd seen Frodo and old Bilbo, the trolls, Elrond, stone giants, Gollum, Thorin's hug at the end, even clips from film 2. Then before DoS, the dragon, who they'd been keeping under-wraps, started appearing on sides of airplanes!

I mean, imagine the potential excitement of seeing Frodo again for the first time in the cinema - instead of in the video blogs. Compare that to Luke Skywalker in TFA, no-one even knew if his role was still in the movie.


Avandel
Half-elven


Feb 7 2016, 4:36pm

Post #15 of 27 (852 views)
Shortcut
just bein' a 'lil cheeky [In reply to] Can't Post

'coz it was real late...Shocked but re SW, not sure. I suppose I thought it would do well no matter how bad it might be, at least initially, and then it might have a big BO drop. Didn't give it much thought, really, except seeing the hype that I would wait to see it re crowds.

So while I knew TFA had done well financially and had pretty good press, except for the OP I hadn't paid attention to SW earnings either. For all I know both the Marvel pictures and Transformers have outdone the Hobbit films *shrug* financially and maybe some others. BO has turned into a spectator sport, rightly or wrongly.

And IMO there's merit in all the films I mentioned - yes, even Transformers ('coz that sector 7 guy cracks me up and I love that shot of the scorpion-thing bursting out of the sandCool). As been stated, BO is a tricky thing, and we all know many movie of merit fade from theaters like the bubbles of our super-size theater drinks.

IMO PJ managed, tho, to pull off the "unfilmable"Heart and in spite of some comments on another thread, IMO the Hobbit characters entered popular consciousness as well. Perhaps not as "iconic" as SW, but few films strike a chord that way. As far as the longevity of that kind of thing, who can say? In its time, am sure Gone With the Wind was quoted and imitated, and only rarely now do I see any parody or quote. Doesn't change the fact that it was landmark film.

Anyway, I sure wish I had had some WB stock, when the Hobbit films were in theaters. The movies (along with Hunger Games) that "boosted the moribund/slow box office" "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is giving the holiday box office a much-needed boost this weekend, adding a stellar $16.5 million Friday on its way to the No. 1 spot for the weekend."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...t-riding-high-757333

Oh, and disk profits, w. all three films in top spots for disk sales for five weeks or so, with bumps later in the year possibly due to EE sales - and assuming this doesn't include downloads.
http://www.the-numbers.com/...-The#tab=video-sales

http://www.the-numbers.com/...-The#tab=video-sales

http://www.the-numbers.com/...-The#tab=video-sales

So I'm not gonna say TFA was a bad film or that other films haven't made more money than PJ's work. I just think WB excec would love to have another Hobbit film in production, if they could.Cool


Avandel
Half-elven


Feb 7 2016, 5:14pm

Post #16 of 27 (844 views)
Shortcut
I suppose it's what you respond to... [In reply to] Can't Post

And re TFA, I had done a fair amount of cheating ahead of time. Personally I wasn't all worked up about Luke, because I utterly believed he was going to show up, sooner or later. I'm still pretty sure that trailer shot of a someone in black, reaching to R2D2, was Mark Hamill. Not to mention Mark Hamill doing the overvoice in the trailers. And honestly, since I "love" SW without being emotionally invested, I didn't care whether Luke showed up or not.

I was more interested in this "new ambiguous baddy", BB-8, and why this young actress was getting so many raves.


Quote
For The Hobbit, the marketing was lacking, a lot of it was poor quality and much of it spoiled the movie - we'd seen so much behind the scenes footage before release we'd practically seen everything before going in - we'd seen Frodo and old Bilbo, the trolls, Elrond, stone giants, Gollum, Thorin's hug at the end, even clips from film 2. Then before DoS, the dragon, who they'd been keeping under-wraps, started appearing on sides of airplanes!


Well, then, I suppose re AUJ I hadn't seen all that much ahead of time - real life was taking up a lot of time, so I hadn't seen all the footage outside the trailers and some PR articles. Hearing this, I guess I am glad I didn't watch all the blogsCool. But then again, don't think anyone forced anyone to watch the v-blogs. I know for me, 'coz I'd see the trailers in theater, I'd get SO excited! TongueHeart

LOL seeing Smaug. That didn't bother me. Actually what DID bother me re DOS was the first trailer, which was SO elf-loaded - ha ha, I remember practically prostrating myself at TORN's doors, that summer, so DESPERATE for newsCrazyCrazyCrazy. Beorn was kept tightly under wraps, the few blogs - no Thorin, no Bilbo. So I don't think it's true there were "spoilers galore" for DOS, because the first dwarf/Beorn images we saw were fuzzy images from a calender company.

Agree that the marketing of the Hobbit needed some work, tho some nice stuff re AUJ, IMO. Anyway, re:


Quote
The reason TFA was better than The Hobbit, is because it stayed true to the familiar universe, it didn't go all digital, it used practical effects where possible, it stayed respectful to the franchise, it didn't try to one-up the previous films with ridiculous stunts, and the callbacks/references/easter-eggs didn't seem forced in (all things the prequels, and The Hobbit, did wrong).


Agree here except I don't see the Hobbit films "not staying true the familiar universe"? If anything, I remember feeling sigh of warm fuzzy contentmentCool as I settled in my seat to watch AUJ for the first time, knowing I would be in PJ's hands and not having to WORRY on that score. The rest - IMO that's back to conversations, I think, on another thread, e.g., do things that bother you about a film (in my case, the IMO relentless and unneeded tie-ins to LOTR) bother you enough to write off a film, overall?

So, for me, re the Hobbit films, they are my favorite films ever, so farHeart. I didn't plan that, but there it is. Lots of beloved characters, for me, including my most favorite character everHeart. Lots of scenes that may be seconds but just fill me with joy, like Dwalin trying to get those cookies out of the jar.Laugh

And what surprised me in TFA doesn't mean I am not looking forward to the next film. There's other reasons I am not just wholly blown away - I didn't find some performances compelling, there are sets that I found a bit dull, here and there, some other things I didn't find that interesting. I liked Kylo Ren and the approach, but of all things found myself missing the flat-out-badassery of Darth Vader (maybe that's James Earl Jones voiceHeart) I didn't expect that, for myselfShocked. And frankly I couldn't believe they used another Death Star "thing". Maybe there are reasons things were done, like the Hobbit and LOTR *shrug*.

Other people obviously respond differently to TFA. It's all good, IMO.



Smaug the iron
Gondor


Feb 7 2016, 5:55pm

Post #17 of 27 (824 views)
Shortcut
? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
it stayed respectful to the franchise, it didn't try to one-up the previous films with ridiculous stunts, and the callbacks/references/easter-eggs didn't seem forced in (all things the prequels, and The Hobbit, did wrong).

The Hobbit trilogy stayed respectful to the franchise and I don't see any callbacks/references/ easter-eggs as forced, I think they where really good and was used in the right moments. It brings the two trilogy together more plus LOTR had many references to the hobbit.


HOBBITFAN13
Lorien

Feb 7 2016, 6:51pm

Post #18 of 27 (811 views)
Shortcut
Thanks heavens! [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally I think TFA was amazing! The new cast was great who cares if it was a rehash they needed to do that to bring us back to familiar territories to move forward. I can't believe its made that much money and agree BOFA TE was not that great.

And J.J is NO JAR JAR, I think TFA is better than all 3 Hobbit movies but not as great as LOTR trilogy.

But hey that's your opinion. If you don't like TFA thats ok.


(This post was edited by HOBBITFAN13 on Feb 7 2016, 6:52pm)


HOBBITFAN13
Lorien

Feb 7 2016, 6:54pm

Post #19 of 27 (805 views)
Shortcut
Agree completely [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Isn't that entirely intentional and part of the point of the whole series? That someone isolated on a desert planet is going to rise up and bring balance to the force - that is what the prophecy has foretold, and that's why we keep seeing history repeat its self - it's the central theme of the movies.

Episode 1 also intentionally mirrored episode 4. It's not lazy writing, it's intentional foreshadowing. Look here: https://youtu.be/k7ZW1gtCljs

Besides, there are probably more similarities between The Hobbit and LotR than between Episodes 4 and 7. There's nothing wrong with rehashing old stories, TFA and Jurassic World have proved that.

The reason TFA was better than The Hobbit, is because it stayed true to the familiar universe, it didn't go all digital, it used practical effects where possible, it stayed respectful to the franchise, it didn't try to one-up the previous films with ridiculous stunts, and the callbacks/references/easter-eggs didn't seem forced in (all things the prequels, and The Hobbit, did wrong).

As for "over-marketing" sure it was everywhere, this is Disney, but it was also very restrained. Going in to the film there were still a lot of questions - even after the movie there are a lot of questions. I never felt like I'd seen too much or had anything spoiled by the marketing - and the BO numbers show that this heavy marketing worked.

For The Hobbit, the marketing was lacking, a lot of it was poor quality and much of it spoiled the movie - we'd seen so much behind the scenes footage before release we'd practically seen everything before going in - we'd seen Frodo and old Bilbo, the trolls, Elrond, stone giants, Gollum, Thorin's hug at the end, even clips from film 2. Then before DoS, the dragon, who they'd been keeping under-wraps, started appearing on sides of airplanes!

I mean, imagine the potential excitement of seeing Frodo again for the first time in the cinema - instead of in the video blogs. Compare that to Luke Skywalker in TFA, no-one even knew if his role was still in the movie.


Agree completely what you just said.


Dame Ioreth
Tol Eressea


Feb 7 2016, 9:19pm

Post #20 of 27 (777 views)
Shortcut
The advertising was also handled better for TFA [In reply to] Can't Post

They put in a lot more time and money advertising. They used social media very well and they respected the fans and gave them a great build-up. In contrast, Warner Brothers relied on the fans for a lot of the buzz. They barely put out any promotional material and very little merchandising compared to Star Wars. I even had a hard time finding a theater (in the Washington DC area) that was showing the trilogy at first. Star Wars had a big build up to when tickets went on sale and sold out some theaters almost instantly for opening night. On the whole, LucasFilm and Disney handled the promotion thousands of time better and than Warner Brothers.

_


Heed WBA when building blanket forts.
ITLs don't get enough FAS. :)

Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings






Gandalf the Green
Rivendell

Feb 7 2016, 9:45pm

Post #21 of 27 (762 views)
Shortcut
I can't agree with your comments about TFA. [In reply to] Can't Post

The whole "remake of Episode IV" criticism - I would render it invalid. It's something said by people who can't really look beyond basic plot elements... It combined old and new elements to give fans renewed hope in the franchise, successfully so for the majority, and remained true to its roots,
which is something The Hobbit largely failed to do. Sure, TFA has familiar elements, but the new elements receive more focus, and for one, the villain isn't just a Vader rip-off, who started off as much of a two-dimensional character in his first film, but instead (Kylo is) a three-dimensional character from the start. Any familiarity was needed to pull the fans back in, and plenty of new elements were brought in at the same time. For one, I don't remember the "defecting stormtrooper" part in A New Hope that humanized these guys... in the original trilogy, all stormtroopers were incompetent pawns of evil. And so there are many other examples of new things that can be thought of.


Meneldor
Valinor


Feb 7 2016, 10:14pm

Post #22 of 27 (758 views)
Shortcut
Let's all remember that everyone is entitled to his own opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

no matter how wrong it is. Tongue


IMO, both TFA and TH had lots of strengths as well as some glaring weaknesses, and neither one should win any awards for originality. But I liked both well enough to see them more than once on the big screen.


They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107


KingTurgon
Rohan


Feb 7 2016, 10:24pm

Post #23 of 27 (751 views)
Shortcut
There's a difference [In reply to] Can't Post

between mirroring (what Episode I did) and rehashing (what Episode VII did).

And I have to comment on this: "The reason TFA was better than The Hobbit, is because it stayed true to the familiar universe, it didn't go all digital, it used practical effects where possible, it stayed respectful to the franchise, it didn't try to one-up the previous films with ridiculous stunts, and the callbacks/references/easter-eggs didn't seem forced in (all things the prequels, and The Hobbit, did wrong)."

1) I'm kind of confused as to what you expected with the PT? The point of it was to show a civilization at its golden age, and it did exactly that. It makes sense things would look sleeker and cleaner.

2) Star Wars is a fantastical story. It shouldn't be bound to using things that are "practical." It's a galaxy where anything is possible - it's not supposed to be realistic.

3) It wasn't about one-upping. The Jedi in the prequels were in their prime - of course they would be able to perform crazy feats with the Force.

4) The callbacks in TFA didn't seem forced but the callbacks in the PT did? I am genuinely wondering if we even watched the same movies.



(This post was edited by KingTurgon on Feb 7 2016, 10:33pm)


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea

Feb 8 2016, 3:11pm

Post #24 of 27 (689 views)
Shortcut
TFA is a BAD story; perhaps a GOOD film in execution [In reply to] Can't Post

But I cant set my mind in a calmed frame when this movie is SO close to the episode 4. Im sorry I htink that is almost out of excuses

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true

Survivor to The Battle for the Fifth Trailer

Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero

There and Back Again Traveller



Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Feb 8 2016, 3:43pm

Post #25 of 27 (682 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, I must disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't think that The Force Awakens has a weak story. There is a big difference between the new film and A New Hope. When George Lucas made the original Star Wars the movie had to tell a complete story, even though it did not wrap up the larger plot of the Rebellion vs. the Galactic Empire. Lucas had no way to know that his little space movie was going to succeed or that he would get the opportunity to complete the vast, multi-generational saga that he had in the back of his mind.

Disney knows that with The Force Awakens they have only the first part of a story that is going to span three films, not including numerous side-stories in various media. The new movie can afford to take things more slowly and set up events for the remaining films. It needs to give a satisfying chunk of story but it can afford to leave more loose ends than then the original. It succeeds wildly in my own humble opinion. It ain't Shakespeare, but it never set out to be so.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."


- Dream of the Endless

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.