The Dark One/Redcloak and Sauron

[Cizak]

Okay, I've never read the LOTR books, I'm seeing people debate it in the comments and I haven't watched the movies for years, but this was still funny.

#1 on this list. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18417_9-famous-movie-villains-who-were-right-all-along_p3.html) Does it remind you of two certain goblins we know? One with purple skin and one with a red cape?

[Dr.Epic]

#1 on this list. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18417_9-famous-movie-villains-who-were-right-all-along_p3.html)

WOW! Next time you're going to comment on a "2,000-hour" film series, maybe you could actually understand its message and themes, not just "Man, this film is long and I can't pay attention. Why's the bad guy bad? I don't know, I wasn't paying attention. He must be good then!":smallannoyed:

[Mike Havran]

Actually, since the saga was written by hobbits from the north-western edge of Middle-earth and approved by the Western king, it might be about as "historically accurate" as Jerusalem Delivered is with regards to the first crusade.

Of course, that only applies if we assume Death of the Author trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor) is in play. Otherwise there is no doubt that Sauron is an utterly evil bastard who doesn't actually give a damn about orcs, trolls or whatever else, and uses them only if that means he can harm other beings.

Neither Redcloak or the Dark One come even close to this territory. They pursue (or at least appear to pursue) a legitimate goal by employing reckless means.

[Zevox]

WOW! Next time you're going to comment on a "2,000-hour" film series, maybe you could actually understand its message and themes, not just "Man, this film is long and I can't pay attention. Why's the bad guy bad? I don't know, I wasn't paying attention. He must be good then!":smallannoyed:
Yeah, if you're going to argue about some films' villains being in the right, you should really try to at least know the stories you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you go, as he quite plainly did for that one.

Zevox

[Morty]

Yes, that Cracked article would be better if the author knew what the hell s/he's talking about. I like moral ambiguity as much as the next man, but come on. If Sauron had cared about the plight of orcs and trolls, he wouldn't have been using them as cheap labor and cannon fodder.
Regarding the presentation of orcs, trolls and other "evil races" in LoTR, Tolkien himself wasn't comfortable with it, but he didn't manage to straighten it out before his death.

[Winter]

Okay, I've never read the LOTR books, I'm seeing people debate it in the comments and I haven't watched the movies for years, but this was still funny.?

Do it. Also read the Silmarillion. Tolkien deliberatly made the orcs "simply evil" to evade the moral conflict.
Orcs have been twisted, corrupted elves ages ago and are made of pure evil and the fight against them is the last fight of the world against some "literal evil enemy" in the world. After Sauron's defeat, evil becomes a concept, the moral concept we have today.

LotR is the end of the Third Age, the end of magic in the world, the end of elves and dwarves and hobbits and ents, who just "fade away", each race in their own way. With Sauron falling (and his master being entrapped "outside of the universe", the "literal evil" is gone from the world; orcs are part of that.

Sauron isn't and never has been right in Tolkien's Lore, in fact, he was defined as being part of the "wrong side" on the cosmic level. Like Devils in D&D, just more powerful.
Sauron is the ring and the ring is mythical corruption in its pure form.

[AutomatedTeller]

It kind of misses the part in the first movie prologue where the last alliance is meant to defeat a Sauron who has basically conquered Middle Earth. And the fact that orcs like eating humans.

In fact, at no point during the films does a non-orc attack an orc without being attacked first, except perhaps at the very end. Orcs (and Nazgul and trolls) are ALWAYS the aggressor.

[JennTora]

I like cracked sometimes. This isn't one of those times. Whoever wrote that really needs to read Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, and then reread them until they regret ever writing that article. Also to pay attention to most of the other movies that were mentioned in the article.

[Ellye]

I think you guys really misssed the point regarding that Cracked article.
It is about LOTR the movies, not the books, nor the entire Tolkien universe.

It's specifically regarding what the movies tell. And standing on their own, the movies do fail to actually make Sauron look evil - he's the villain alright, but that's it.

I agree with the Cracked author - disregarding everything else that I know about Tolkien's universe and considering only the movies, Sauron could very well just be another side to a war, not a "evil side", but simply the side that's not telling the story. And that's the comparison to the goblinoid struggle in OotS that the OP tried to make.

[JennTora]

I think you guys really misssed the point regarding that Cracked article.
It is about LOTR the movies, not the books, nor the entire Tolkien universe.

It's specifically regarding what the movies tell. And standing on their own, the movies do fail to actually make Sauron look evil - he's the villain alright, but that's it.

I agree with the Cracked author - disregarding everything else that I know about Tolkien's universe and considering only the movies, Sauron could very well just be another side to a war, not a "evil side", but simply the side that's not telling the story. And that's the comparison to the goblinoid struggle in OotS that the OP tried to make.

In that case:

"Three rings for the elven kings under the sky,
Seven for the dwarf lords in their halls of stone
Nine for mortal men doomed to die
And one for the dark lord(usually refers to a bbeg) on his dark throne(usually sat upon by a bbeg)

In the land of mordor where the shadows lie
One ring to rule them all(the possessors of the rings)
One ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them(wanting to bring a bunch of rulers together and bind them to your dark will isn't something a misunderstood hero would normally do.)
In the land of mordor where the shadows lie.

Misunderstood heroes are also not in a great habit of sending evil wraiths to go kill hobbits and take their jewelry. And by the way, orcs were mentioned as being always chaotic evil by saruman in the movies. I think he specifically said they were elves who chose to serve evil, even though that's not precisely true to the books.

[zimmerwald1915]

I think he specifically said they were elves who chose to serve evil, even though that's not precisely true to the books.
The [movie, if that wasn't clear] line is as follows:

"Do you know how the orcs first came into being? They were elves once, taken by the dark powers, tortured and mutilated, a ruined and terrible form of life, and now...perfected, my fighting uruk-hai. Whom do you serve?"
-Saruman

That "chose to serve evil" part is actually truer in the case of the books. Morgoth came both to Elves and to Men shortly after their respective awakenings, and took or seduced many to his service and worship. The difference, as it turned out, was that Orome came to the Elves shortly after (relatively speaking) and convinced three tribes of Elves to follow him to paradise, while the Men that rejected Morgoth did so of their own free will.

[ManuelSacha]

Cracked is terrible at fact checking.
It's nothing new.

[Morty]

I think you're missing the point, people. It's not about whether LotR orcs are irredeemably evil or not - Tolkien himself regretted presenting them this way, but never did provide a final answer, I think. The point is that even if they are just misunderstood and such, Sauron is still the worst thing that could have happened to them, since he uses them as disposable cannon fodder and labor force.

[Winter]

I think those who say we miss the point miss the point: :smallbiggrin:

Go to a geek place (like a webcomic about D&D) and state something that is factually wrong about Tolkien Lore.
What is that thread about? What was stated? No, wrong!

It is you and your opinion get smashed by nerd rage (just as you deserve for not knowing your Tolkien!)

Orcs and Sauron being misunderstood. Geez, read some real books instead of dumb webpages! :smalltongue:

[snikrept]

I think that website had a pretty good point about the movies' mere sketch of the LOTR backstory and assumption that filmgoing fans would have already read the books. I agree that in the movies it really isn't explained much why Sauron is pretty darn evil. They just flat out state at the start that he's malicious and cruel and we're expected to accept it because he looks ugly. It's telling but not showing, and doesn't do the books justice.

[JennTora]

I think that website had a pretty good point about the movies' mere sketch of the LOTR backstory and assumption that filmgoing fans would have already read the books. I agree that in the movies it really isn't explained much why Sauron is pretty darn evil. They just flat out state at the start that he's malicious and cruel and we're expected to accept it because he looks ugly. It's telling but not showing, and doesn't do the books justice.

And again, I believe creating a bunch of rings for the purpose of corrupting people into wicked shadows(in the books this is literal. :p) of their formers is enough to suggest that he's malicious and cruel. We see the one ring's effect on frodo's, Bilbo's, and Smeagol/Gollum's mind. Sauron and the One Ring are a part of each other and share the same will and the same desires. They could have fleshed out the backstory better, yes. But we have sufficient information in the movies to declare Sauron evil. We see his army torture gollum to discover the location of the one ring. We hear the poem that explains that sauron made the one ring to enslave the bearers of the others. We see that he sends his Nazgul to kill the person who has the ring and take it from them. Sorry even from the movies I can't see Sauron as being right.

[King of Nowhere]

the point of a movie is that it is much shorter than a book, even when that movie is an 11-hour trilogy (counting the extended versions). plus, what a film does better is action, and what a book does better is characterization, which is why in the movie the battle for minas tirith takes 2 hours and in the books, like, 30 pages.
So when you make a movie from a book you have to sacrifice much of the complexity of a backstory and of the characters. that's why they told more than shown that sauron is evil. Because I agree that with what is shown in the books it may appear that sauron is just another side in the conflict, or at least close enough. ok, we see him killing enemy civilians, but the story is set much earlier than the geneva convention. every ancient army committed genocide after winning a war, and tortureing and poisoning (something akin to the ring effect) were widely practiced. It's the kind of thing that in war happens. So in the movie there may be some ambiguity. Not much, but some.
Anyway, cracked articles are never written to be factually accurate or impartial. they are exaggeratedly partisan and overstating. That's possibly done for humoristical purposes.
But what that article said about sauron could have perfectly applied to redcloak and the dark one, that is true.