🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Attraction/addiction to the Ring

Foe-Hammer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
985
Reaction score
0
I believe the ring wraiths are talking to him. Tempting him to put it on. I could be wrong. I've only seen the movie twice and the details are getting fainter the more time goes by.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
Harad, I think that says something about the difficulty of the changes that had to be made from the book to the movie, and where the movie had no choice but to fail in this regard and cause confusion.

The growing power of the ring over Frodo NEEDS that 17 year period. I think Tolkien made the power of the ring a gradual process throughout the book. By eliminating this 17 year period for the movie, PJ ended up undermining the power of the ring over Frodo. I don't know if there was anything PJ could have done except somehow show those 17 years passing and leave it up to the audience to put 2 and 2 together.

As for Weathertop, I think that the power of the Dark Lord and his influence was much stronger because the Ringwraiths' power was directed towards Frodo. Tolkien made it plain that whenever evil was nearby, he was tempted and drawn to put on the ring. I think the movie made that clear as well when the hobbits were hiding under the tree/rocks when the Ringwraith was sniffing right over top of them.
 

Foe-Hammer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
985
Reaction score
0
I started reading "The Shadow of the Past" again.

This is the morning, just before Gandalf puts the ring in the fire.

"A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he ofton uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades:"

Does this prove that Frodo didn't have to wear the ring in order to "merely continue"? Then the movie would be in line with the book, AGAIN.
Damn that PJ!

Harad,

Bakshi's scene changing was a joke. I could buy the calendar bit, if it were done right.
 

Haven

Registered User
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I agree, I feel that Frodo would need the 17 years...but then again, that would take more time. So I think what the movie was trying to do, was show that if you have the ring, instantly you're attracted to it, b/c of dark forces and the dark forces that reside in everyone. Oh and whenever evil is near, he feels compelled to put it on. That was my take on it.
 

chrome_rocknave

Frodo Lives!
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
Mirkwood
Yeah--I think the 17 years was needed, also. Another thing that needed to be stressed (and was not) is that Frodo isn't some 20 year old guy! He's 50 (or somewhere in there :rolleyes: )!
 

Foe-Hammer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
985
Reaction score
0
harad,

Yeah, thats right. I forgot that he didn't wear it around.
 

aragil

Just another loremaster
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,852
Reaction score
4
Location
Secondarily Beautiful State of Washington
I don't think that the 17 years was needed in the movie, or in the books either. (People who haven't read the books, please shut your eyes). Remember the scene with Isildur at the Sammath Naur (sp?). He's only just gotten hold of the ring. He looks at the ring, looks at the fire, and says, 'I think I'll just keep it, as weregild for my father.' Of course, the real reason that he says this is because the ring has already taken hold of him, and he can not willingly give it up, certainly not to destroy it. We'll see almost the exact same scene with Frodo in RotK. He'll get to the cracks, look at the fire, look at the ring, and say 'I think I'll keep it, and challenge Sauron with it.' I doubt that Isildur put on the ring immediately after cutting it from Sauron's finger, or that he owned it 17 years before Elrond asked him to toss it in (Orodruin was still nigh at hand). Yet, the power the ring had on Isildur was as great (if not greater) than the power it has on Frodo at the end, and Isildur was one of the mightiest of his race.
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
An uncommon occurrence, a short post by Grond.

Why would there have to be some long period of time for the effects of the Ring to occur? It is infused with so much inherent evil that it can sense that it's time to move on. (aka Gollum drops it). Why can't we just accept that the act of passing the Ring, whether hand to hand or in an envelope is enough for the "changing of ownership". And the power of the Ring should be enough to infuse the new owner with a "desire" to keep it...even it he's never held it in his hand.

I have a way smaller problem with this than some other scenes. But.... that's just me.:)
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
As far as I can find in the texts, the only time Isildur wore the One Ring was when he attempted to escape the Orcs at Anduin, swimming across the river while invisible. The Ring slipped off his finger and he was killed by orc arrows as he could then be seen.

If anyone knows of other times he wore it, please enlighten me. :)
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Well Harad, we're in the movie forum so I'm not sure which story you speak of. I do know that he stopped in Minis Tirith long enough to instruct Anarion's son (Isildur's nephew) in the running of the south kingdom and it was there he wrote the scroll where he described the Ring upon finding it. But all in all, you're right, that was probably days and weeks rather than weeks and months.

I don't have the chronology of years here at work, but I'm sure it would detail the year/date of his death and that could be chronicled to the defeat of Sauron and we would know exactly how much time he stayed in Minis Tirith. Got your book handy? It would be in the Appendix.:)
 

Haven

Registered User
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
This doesn't refer to Isildur, but just a point I wanna bring up... Hobbits are more resistant to magic than humans...which could be a reason why it would take longer (say like, maybe 17 years ;) ) for the ring to take effect, even then it's not like, RARR I MUST HAVE THE RING...(sorry I couldn't think of an intelligent phrase there)
 
E

Elin

Guest
WRT Frodo's ownership of the ring, as portrayed in the movie, am I correct in remembering that he was the first to hold it in his hand after Bilbo "let it go" (dropped it on the floor - much inferior to the interchange between Gandalf and Bilbo in the book)? Gandalf attempted to touch it, but wouldn't/couldn't. Later, Frodo came in and picked it up. So you could say his "ownership" of the ring (or the ring's ownership of Frodo) began then.

I also don't see what would have been so difficult about showing a passage of time. But that was one of the things that bothered me the least in this film. For the record, since I'm new in the forum, I'll state that I enjoyed the film as long as I consciously blocked out my memories of the book. Lots of nice portions and aspects, but overall it missed the mark for me. Too much appeal made to the action picture crowd.

I'm enjoying reading all your posts very much - learning a lot, laughing, and delighting in "meeting" others who share my delight in ME.

Elin
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Welcome to the forum Elin. Your post shows great wisdom. I, too enjoyed the movie but went in with no expectations as to it comparing to the book. I enjoyed it for what it was, A great movie based on the book, but, with enough changes to cause me great disappointment.:)
 

Haven

Registered User
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Nice to meet you Elin!...erm, now for me to get back on topic...
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Originally posted by Harad
Getting back to Elin's comment on the book. My reading of it was that Gandalf held the ring. Is that worrisome, logically? Or does that just show that Gandalf was so in control of himself that he could hold the ring without giving in to the dark side, i.e. using it. Its not as if the class of Wizards did not have a dark side.
From FotR, Shadow of the Past, "...Gandalf held it up. It looked to be made of pure and solid gold. 'Can you see any markings on it?' he asked..."

I had completely forgotten that Gandalf held the Ring in his hand until your post made me look it up. It would seem to indicate that Gandalf had more self-control that Galadriel and Elrond. Otherwise, I have no explanation as to why one would hold it and the other would not. :)
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
I just came upon this thread (a bit late) but I wanted to throw in a few thoughts.

I think the word addiction is misleading. It is the mere possessing of the Ring that is the problem, not use. Grond is absolutely right in pointing out that there is no need for the 17 years that Frodo possessed the Ring in the book and that Isildur was immediately ensnared by the Ring. (An aside: there is no knowing how many times Isildur actually used the Ring. The book only mentions the time it betrayed Isildur by falling off, but if he had never used it before then, how would he have known it would make him invisible? Certainly we can assume it did not make Sauron invisible or how could Gil-galad and Elendil engaged him in combat.) Also remember the finding of the Ring in the Anduin River by Deagol and his immediate murder by Smeagol/Gollum. The Ring's evil influence is once again immediate with no need for it to be used.

I believe the reason for the 17 years in the book is that the passage of time with no sign of aging on Frodo's part is one of the things that disturbs Gandalf. From the chapter "The Shadow of the Past": "It was just at this time that Gandalf reappeared after his long absence. For three years after the Party he had been away. Then he paid Frodo a brief visit, and after taking a good look at him he went off again. During the next year or two he had turned up fairly often, coming unexpectedly after dusk, and going off without warning before sunrise. He would not discuss his own business and journeys, and seemed chiefly interested in small news about Frodo's health and doings." A couple of pages later in telling Frodo about his growing suspicions about the Ring, Gandalf says: "And all seemed well with Bilbo. And the years passed. Yes, they passed, and they seemed not to touch him. He showed no signs of age. The shadow fell on me again. But I said to myself: 'After all he comes of a long-lived family on his mother's side. There is time yet. Wait!" "And I waited. Until that night when he left this house. He said and did things then that filled me with a fear that no words of Saruman could allay. ..." The movie does a good job (I think) in showing Gandalf's disturbance about Bilbo's actions at the night of the party. It then shows Gandalf going off to the library at Minas Tirith and reading Isildur's account before coming back to do the fire test. There is no need for the 17 year delay in the movie and it would only add complications

Another thing to remember is a point I made on another thread. It is important to always keep in mind that the Ring is a character itself. In both the book and the movie Gandalf talks about the Ring's own actions: betraying Isildur, "leaving Gollum", etc. This is why I say that I think addiction is a misleading word to use in talking of the Ring. The Ring being a character in its own right also has a bearing on Frodo's behavior at Weathertop. He puts on the Ring both because the Nazgul will him to and because the Rings wants him to; in the book it says: "his terror was swallowed up in a sudden temptation to put on the Ring". At several points the movie does a good job of showing this outside influence on Frodo to put on the Ring and reveal himself. I believe someone already mentioned the scene with the Black Rider in the Shire where the hobbits hide under the log. There is also the scene at The Prancing Pony where Frodo is fingering the Ring with the same expression as when he was under the log (for you purists, in the book Frodo does say at The Prancing Pony that he felt a compulsion to put on the Ring).

A somewhat related matter is the scene at the Ford of Bruinen. (The purists are going to hate this.) I dearly love the scene in the book (it is a personal favorite) and Frodo defying the Nazgul is extremely dramatic, but it always bothered me a little that he was unable to resist the urge to put on the Ring at Weathertop when uninjured and confronting four Nazgul, but somehow does defy them at the Ford after carrying the bit of Morgul Blade in him for a fortnight and being nearly in the wraiths' world by then and confronting all nine Nazgul. The movie version avoids that question.
 
Last edited:

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
I had completely forgotten that Gandalf held the Ring in his hand until your post made me look it up. It would seem to indicate that Gandalf had more self-control that Galadriel and Elrond. Otherwise, I have no explanation as to why one would hold it and the other would not.
Grond

I got so involved in my long, previous post I didn't get around to mentioning that. I am glad someone else brought it up. It always seemed a bit of a slip on Tolkien's part letting Gandalf touch the Ring. Especially since Gandalf made such a point in the previous chapter, "A Long Expected Party", with Gandalf telling Bilbo: "No, don't give the ring to me. Put it on the mantlepiece."

I realize I will have now really brought down the wrath of the purists on myself by twice in two quick posts suggesting that Tolkien was slightly inconsistent where the movie was not. (Running for cover.) :) :)
 
Last edited:

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Greenwood, an absolutely absorbing and excellent post. I agree with every single item except one. Have you guessed it? I am a purist......

The Ford has always been the pivotal point in the book for me. It was at that moment, despite having a morgul wound, despite having not slept or eaten, that Frodo gains his inner strength to resist exactly what you seem happy is avoided in the movie. This scene is the most important scene in the book for Frodo. He matures, he is finally brave (He don't need no stinkin ring to face down the Nazgul) and while he still fails (sword broken, voiceless), Tolkien makes that point crystal clear (at least to me). Frodo is a character to be reckoned with. He has found his inner strength and has the will and power to go on.

But that's just me, a purist.... and I could be wrong.:)
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Grond

Alas, here we will have to agree to disagree. I think Frodo has already demonstrated his tremendous strength and courage by the way he accepts what Gandalf has told him of the Ring in "A Shadow of the Past" (I would be reduced to a quivering mass of jelly -- O MY GOD! This is Sauron's ring and he is out to get me!" Actually, I probably wouldn't even have the courage to quiver -- Sauron might notice) and his acceptance of the need to leave his beloved Shire, even with the agents of Sauron in hot pursuit -- to Gildor: "You mean the Riders? I feared they were servants of the Enemy." While I love the scene in the book -- one of the trilogy's most dramatic climaxes, in my opinion -- I have never thought of it as necesssary to show Frodo's bravery or resolve. That is probably why the change in the movie doesn't bother me greatly and I don't feel it violates the spirit of the book. I think the movie has similarly shown Frodo's courage by that point: "What must I do?", before the scene at the Ford. Perhaps Jackson and I think alike. (Oh oh! I hear the swish of purist's arrows coming my way. :) )

Harad

Somewhere in another thread I have already said that Frodo putting on the Ring after leaving Amon Hen has always bothered me as the biggest single inconsistency in LOTR. The only rationale I can give for Sauron not instantly being aware of him is that the Seat of Seeing on Amon Hen is special. (Sorry, I said it again, I couldn't resist.) Similarly, it bothers me when Sam puts on the Ring after the encounter with Shelob, actually inside the border of Mordor. But, I guess the argument there is that Sauron is blinded by his own webs of darkness that protect his realm and his attention is elsewhere.
 

Foe-Hammer

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
985
Reaction score
0
I think the reason gandalf didn't want to touch the ring was because Bilbo was giving the ring up and at that time it had no owner. After Frodo took reciept of the ring, it had it's new owner (an uncorrupted owner to work on, perhapes?), and it was safe for him then. Perhapes the ring is drawn to the uncorrupted and the corrupted are drawn to the ring?

Or maybe Tolkien had his limits when it comes to writing...
 

Thread suggestions

Top