Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
In the movies, the One Ring is wielded by Sauron, granting him great powers of force, but for other ring-bearers, such as Frodo and Bilbo, it grants them nothing more than long life and invisibility. Can anyone explain this for me?StarWarsDude 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it grants power equal to the "measure" of the user. So, a powerful being gains more from it. Galadriel said something similar (it would make her a powerful sorcerer, which it obviously wouldn't do for Frodo). PsiSeveredHead 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree SeveredHead, the reason Bilbo and Frodo didn't have such powers as Sauron was because, firstly, they didn't have the powers required and because they didn't try to learn.
Question about the power of thering, in the 2000+ years the ring was lost (after Isildor lost it and before Gollum found it) it was in a river, did it do anything to the river? turn it darker, corrupted the fish and plant life? was it found by someone then lost again? I've read the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings all of them and The Silmarillion, I've also saw the movies and I can not find anything about the "Lost Ring" time period was this done so that someone (like his son or grand kids) could write stories that took place in this time period or is it just missing? 18.104.22.168 17:57, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
1st Possibility: The Ring was made to strengthen Sauron and that's why the ring is always calling for him...it's like a living being wanting to go back to his owner...and so the possibility is that the ring would only work at full power with its master and Frodo/Biblo only got side effects like invisibility and long life...as you can see ... the ring cursed Smeagol when he putted it. And everytime that Frodo used the ring Sauron could locate him.
2nd Possibility: You should notice that Sauron was a Maia (or something like that) so a powerful being...Galadriel was a powerful elfish sorcerer, Gandalf also mentioned that the Ring would corrupt him although it would give him alot of power too(Gandalf was also a Maia)... Frodo and Bilbo were only some mere Hobbits..."weak" beings...Winterz 14:31, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
Sauron and the Ring Edit
Hi. I have a question for you experts.
What if Sauron would of got his Ring back? Would anything change that much? seriously?
After looking throughout this wikisite and reading the books, I've come across these facts:
1. He already controls the wills of men. 2. He doesn't know about the elf rings. 3. The Dwarves no longer have their rings.
So...when they say "One ring to rule them all"...is that really true? Or what exactly would he be capable of with the Ring, that he can't do already w/out the ring? regain his bodily form maybe...is that it? Millstw21 21:45, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
It would change yes.
1. He doesnt control all Men 2. He knows about the elven rings, thats why he launched war on them. 3. The Dwarven rings could not harm the Dwarves because they can't be corrupted.
So..The ring would give him a strong body .. his true form. It would estabilish his great powers... making him again a Maia (one of the strongest).. He now with body would eventually lead Mordor to a real War and devastation... Witch-King is a baby hobbit compared to him.
Winterz 21:21, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
There is an easy explenation to the side effect: The Black Riders. It would seem that because the Black Riders, as well as Sauron, awoke from their slumber, it impaired Frodo. Bilbo had no problems because the Ringwraiths were asleep. Sauron's power was diminished in Dol Guldor (or however you spell it). So, it is affecting Frodo because the Ringwraiths, servants of the ring's true master, are near. Doesn't that make sense?
The Ring Edit
in the novels, the destruction of the one ring causes all the other rings of power (for example Galadriel's ring) to lose power. Why is this?
Sauron, in disguise, gave the lore of ring-making to the elves in the first place. When he created the One Ring, he essentially bound all rings of power that had been made to the One Ring.
"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all,
And in the Darkness Bind them"
The Elves realised at the moment of the One Rings creation, when Sauron revealed his true purpose, that their rings would be bound to him, and they would be under his control, so they worked together to shroud them from his sight. Sauron knew they existed, but could not locate or control them. However the rings were still bound to the One Ring. Upon its destruction, that power was released, but since the One Ring was the final key in Saurons initial plan, they lost some of their power. Sauron, the creator of the rings, and the Master Ring, had been destroyed, so a part of the Elven rings was also destroyed.
22.214.171.124 04:43, February 28, 2012 (UTC)Sir Charles
I feel the section on symbolism is a bit much with the line The Lord of the Rings cannot be properly understood outside of the context of the Catholic Faith
I am not even a Christian and yet I understood the book just fine. I have nothing against Christanity in and of itself but as the writer admits Tokien himself said there was no symbolism as telling soemone else what to think was being a tyrant. The writer is trying a bit too hard to put Christanity in a pure light to be sincere. While their info may be correct its also incomplete Saruman would then be the majority of people: hypocrites who claim to be Christian while serving Evil and doing evil deeds and still believing themselves to be saved from Hell.Gowihasti (talk) 13:49, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
That opening statement is in and of itself offensive and the entire section needs to be reworked or deleted. 07:04, December 27, 2014 (UTC)RandomFanGuyWhoStumbledAcrossTheArticle
After taking some time to consider the situation I've taken the step of editing out the section in question. If someone in charge here wants to revert my edit I guess that will be what it is, but if there's to be a symbolism section in this article I think it should be relevant to the text rather than a thinly-veiled attempt to convert. A revision back to the original version of the section, which discussed various present symbolic elements such as the similarity to concepts in Platonism, would be more than welcome. 01:40, January 28, 2015 (UTC)RandomFanGuyWhoStumbledAcrossTheArticle
I see one of the admins reverted the article back to the version with the dogmatic evangelicism intact. I'm not getting into an edit war on wikia but I have faith that someone will fix this. I think any objective person reading the article would be able to see that its current version is incredibly wrong and will leave this to the experienced editors here to fix. 126.96.36.199 03:35, February 2, 2015 (UTC)RandomFanGuyWhoStumbledAcrossTheArticle