Gripes with the Peter Jackson LotR and Hobbit films

[Bowmaster]

I agree with everyone that are complain.

1.Ents. Ents refusing to fight Isengard?. They did know about the Saruman. And where's the great scene where they get so mad that their head and Isengard with it blows up! And why did Fangorn thought that they were hobbits. He believed they were orcs! Hello, PJ, you do have brains. Why didn't you use them and understand that Treebeard had eyes.

2.Hornburg. Elves coming to Hornburg to aid? They marched from Lorien, walking, and PJ thinks that they went faster than Uruk-Hai and Dunlendings that were at Isengard, much closer. And why do they always say "Helm's Deep, Helm's Deep, Helm's Deep...". Honestly, it may not be very important, but it's HORNBURG. Helm's Deep is just the place where Hornburg is. And why do they say that there were only 300 men. Is that all the men that the great kingdom of Rohan has in it's capital. And Hornburg is a fortress, used only in times of war, usually abandoned-like. Why there were men in there? And the berserkers. They were the greatest of the Uruk-Hai, and Saruman didn't give any armour to them? And in the books Eomer was in Hornburg, it was Erkenbrand that came to aid. And it would have been nice to see how Eomer and Aragorn led the men to defend the gate. Instead they showed how the men of Rohan tried to defend the gate, with Theoden just being there and yielling: "Defend the gate!"

3.Men of Gondor. Where is Imrahil with his Swan Knights? Imrahil is a very important character, even ruled White City for a while. It would have been nice to see the one with elven blood in his veins. And why they showed Faramir as a weakling that fell under the power of The Ring and new nothing about commanding and was just one simple character. PJ's view of Faramir made him a person that could have been taken away. He knew much about it, and he was able to resist the power of The Ring. And where's the moment when he falls in love with Eowyn. That was something that you must see. And Boromir. The books gave me a view that he was a man of great strenght, courage and wisdom. The movies gave a view that he was as bad as his brother in movies. The only good part about him is "One does not simply walk into Mordor", and when he keeps fighting with two arrows in his chest. All the other? Lame. And what about the soldiers of Gondor? They were meant to be able to kill ten orcs, but in the movies the orcs were able to kill ten men. And there was like 100x more orcs with Mordor than men with Gondor. Gondor should have fallen at Sauron's very first strike to Gondor if they were soooo weak. How can men that can run around with full armour that weights like 50 kilo's be taken down by an orc with powers half what they have and with weapons that are rusted? Unrealistic, unrealistic, unrealistic! And of course, Denethor. He was a wise man that just once happened to look at the Palantir. He loved his people, was a great and wise man and a great father. Instead he didn't care about his people, he was mad and stupid weakling and a knew nothing about being a father.

I may post some more later, but know I go to sleep.

Edit:4.The Nazgul. What, Aragorn OWNS the Nazgul at Weathertop!? He fought against like five Nazgul's, and thirty seconds... VICTORY! The Nazgul were stronger at night, they could not be hurted by fire and if Aragorn had slashed one of them, he would have get ill(like Merry in the BoPF). He could win them if it would be day and he had a good bucket of water(they hate water). And how can the Nazgul horses be faster than Arwen's(Glorfindel's) elven horse? They almost captured Frodo. "Drama baby!". NO! I'd like to see how they win and how they lose. They lose when they should win(Aragorn fighting the Nazgul's at Weathertop) and they win when they should lose(Arwen escaping the Nazgul's. They would have got her if there wouldn't be a river on the way).

5.The wizards. I'd like to see a better fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Some say that it's good, but I say it's bad. Was that the great might of Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White? Throw each other around? Bah, when Gandalf tells about the fight at Weathertop against the Nazguls, he describes great light and fire, not that he threw them away. I could pick up Saruman or Gandalf and throw them the same distance(not really).
And how can Gandalf lose against WK? How can his staff break by WK being near enough? Even with the powers he used against Saruman he could win it. But the only reason why he didn't die is that Rohan came. And his staff? He did still have it after that? How? It's unique. And his staff is so important that if it got lost the Men of Gondor would give a grave to it.

[Riverknight]

1 No mention of the other battles around middle earth ex. dwarfs and men of dale routing the easterlings outside of Erebor.

2 No Tom Bombadil

3 PJ made Denethor look like he was crazy

4 No Glorfindel...

5 The bloody oath breakers killing all the orcs....

6 No Saruman and shire part towards the end

7 Aragorn anti-hero

8 No Grey company

9 Gondor had plate armour

10 The soldiers guarding Minas Tirith looked like they would run at the site of a spider.... the only epic part was the catapault scene.

And thats about it....

[alreadyded]

This was always going to be a tricky episode to film. Unless you know the backstory from the Unfinished Tales than you cannot really see the Nazgul were spooked. They were cut off from help, had had to fight Gandalf, knew that both Elf lords and Rangers were out on the prowl and most importantly they recognized the hobbit daggers would kill them... but of course that is more or less impossible to even write (which is why I presume why JRRT made it only an abortive appendix entry at best and not book material - because he would have needed POV episode and he only did those for the bad guys when somebody was listening not as stand alone chapters). Once you make the reasonably logical cutout of the Barrow Downs because you cut out Tom you loose magic swords. All the rest only becomes clear in retrospect and you have to admit at the moment on the first read the Nazgul do seem rather impudent. A film will not really support that, either a Nazgul POV scene needed to be invented and the Barrow Downs included or you are left with just giving Aragorn action moment.

Personally while I have lots of issues they fall into three groups:

Made up stuff that does not seem to serve any point except fake tension - Aragorn's non death for example.

Making Faramir a Putz and Denethor a Bad Guy, and making Pippen an Oath breaker as a result

In general dumb battle strategy - For example I see no reason why Theodin is running to Helm's Deep with refugees instead of trying to bring reinforcements to the army as the Isen. In fact why not keep the original in a movie they worried lacked women characters the solid endorsement of all the leaders of Rohan that Eowyn should lead while the king was away is a good moment for JRRT. Related is he general tendency to make all the character forced into acting rather than doing something out of choice, be it the Ents, or Theodin or Faramir or even Denethor, one gets the impression PJ thinks nobody chooses or tries to choose the correct option without being tricked or fooled or having no other option after trying to run away.

A small point too much slow mo - really does anyone think Frodo is dead in the first movie of a 3 movie series where he is the establish main character - the slow mo in Moria was silly, I mean its not like the LOTR was a small under the radar book.

Unfinished Tales states that the Nazgul are "confused" during day light and avoid water when possible for some unknown reason. The Nazgul attacked at night and there was no water around. The Hobbit's daggers cannot hurt them. Aragorn even says the name Elbereth did more harm (which was none at all) than the dagger Frodo cut the WitchKing with.

I agree it is hard to depict in the movies but Jackson messed it all up. Should he have changed it from the book? OK. But should he have changed it the way he did? No. It makes the movie and story worse not better.

[menawati]

Jackson did a pretty good job overall imo.
But the things that really annoyed me are :-

1. Battle of Pelennor Fields. It was all started so well in the film with the Rohirrim turning up and charging which started to turn the battle - he should have then shown the men of Gondor rallying and finally the Grey Company arriving to tip the scales in a hard fought victory. Instead we had all the build up totally ruined by the army of the dead being used as an 'I-WIN' button. It totally devalued all of the conflict that had previously ensued in the battle and was a complete anti-climax as it removed all the tension that had been building up in one cheesy stroke. Even my little kid said 'Pfft, well, if they got all those indestructible ghosts they can't lose'.

2. Casting - I hate Orlando Bloom in everything he's ever been in due to such poor acting - butchered the role of Legolas. Even Craig Parker who played Haldir would have been better in that role.

3. Barrow-wights should have been in there somewhere.

edit: and oh yeh why do Orcs or goblins or any other sort of evil minion type creature ALWAYS have to speak with a Cockney accent in these movies. It gets a bit old.

[knicolas2]

regarding to the gondor soldiers:
it would have been a bit boring in a movie to have not a little bit drama.. thousands of dead men that sounds good in a movie and make it more dramatic.

even if not.. . imagine you, defending with maybe 1000 , could be the garrison of west-osgiliath, against 10000 or even more orcs that are attacking you directly. what do you think how high is your chance to survive? something like 0,1 % . maybe if you are a extremly good warrior.

[Bobz]

I've had these debates a hundred times so I'm a little tired of talking about the pros and cons. Nevertheless I have to answer two points...

1 No mention of the other battles around middle earth ex. dwarfs and men of dale routing the easterlings outside of Erebor.

Simple, show not tell. Books can dedicate pages to background detail without losing the main plot, movies have to show you what's happening and that's not nearly as easy.

4 No Glorfindel...

It does bug me when people lament his exclusion. Tell me, what does Glorfindel actually do in Lord of the Rings? He appears for five minutes, has a brief chat with Frodo, then you never see him again. (Actually does he appear at the end at all? I can't quite remember )


For a gripe, has anyone mentioned the Witch-King destroying Gandalf's staff yet? Because that is something that makes absolutely no sense. How does a mere wraith destroy the symbol of power of the strongest of the wizards, and a Maia at that. I'm glad it was cut from the theatrical release, but I do wish the extended edition just kept the stand-off and the Witch-King withdrawing once the Rohirrim horns were sounded - which was actually pretty much to the book.

[Ngugi]

For a gripe, has anyone mentioned the Witch-King destroying Gandalf's staff yet? Because that is something that makes absolutely no sense. How does a mere wraith destroy the symbol of power of the strongest of the wizards, and a Maia at that. I'm glad it was cut from the theatrical release, but I do wish the extended edition just kept the stand-off and the Witch-King withdrawing once the Rohirrim horns were sounded - which was actually pretty much to the book.

The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.

- Letter 210. From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman [Not dated; June 1958]

[StealthFox]

The breaking of Gandalf's staff really bothers me too. But, Ngugi, do you think that quote justifies PJ's scene? As Bobz said, it would have been better as Tolkien wrote it:

Then the Black Captain rose in his stirrups and cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone.

Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder: there was a flash of searing lightning, and the doors tumbled in riven fragments to the ground.

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.

"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that waits you and your Master. Go!"

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

"Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.


Of course there are some difficulties with this passage translating to film, but it would have been much better like this, imo.

[Gothmog 22]

I think ive summed up everything in this thread: the movies were very good but sucked lore-wise .one problem i had was in the ambush from isengard when aragorn takes a spill and arwen somehow telepathically communicates with him.

[Ngugi]

I didn't percive it as a justification to the staff-scene, I percive it as a explanation to why and how the Witch-king could oppose a great maiar [be it so that he's made less potent due to his physichal form].

But in a manner it at the same time is an excuse. The original scene is very good for when it comes to a book:

Thrice [the Witch-kin] cried [his spells]. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder: there was a flash of searing lightning, and the doors tumbled in riven fragments to the ground.
In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.
‘You cannot enter here,’ said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. ‘Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!’
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
‘Old fool!’ he said. ‘Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!’ And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.
And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin’s sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

Marvelous writing, however much less appealing for a movie scene.

I do not say that the breaking of the staff * is a good choice [I'm not fond of that detail mostly since it's to close to the denunciation of Saruman] but I understand the importance of a visual token of the sincere situation the encounter mean. Two 'guys' staring at each other and exchanging words is at great risk to not in a visual medium manage that feat. As said, countless times, a movie is another medium and a reader and a movie viewer will not use "the same eyes" when taking in the story.
The WK is not afraid to come and attempt to kill Gandalf, on the opposit he expects to do so. In the movie we know the power of Gandalf (and his ability to drive away the other Nazgûl; thus to viewer he's strong and the threat the WK by all right should impose is for the scene dangerously reduced) and we are mostly inspired to feel the might of the WK - but to feel it when it comes to a film we're very much in need to see it.
Or we end up with a classic problem in many movies where we are presented with a villain we are only "told" to fear but never [until the very, very end usually] due to what he/she does ourselves, trough our senses [sight and hearing], can form us of our inner perception that there is anything to 'fear'.

A "here but not further"-cocky Gandalf facing a (as we know we are expected to think) terrible foe that do not do anything [a.k.a proves a mortal threat to Gandalf's existence] do work porly. Yes it would be closer to the books letters, while at the same time it would be further away from the essence of the scene. The threat, the "now can evil win the day"-moment.
And it's the essence that make us react to the film scene, why readers remember it strongly. Though while we readers could appriciate a direct book version the movie ain't just for us, but we would risk, if not remove, the possibility for a common viewer who has not read LotR to understand how dire the moment is (especially as nobody but the guy Gandalf should be expected to beat enter, going by the book), unless perhaps we made Gandalf afraid during the entire scene to recapture the tension of the confrontation. And that's not an appealing situation either.

If built up as a duel scene [of the minds], the excellent end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly comes to my mind, it would work and in the book it does, because the pace is all different.
The book can allow that while it is hard to jerk a viewer from the general battle to such a new level just to toss him back again, as either you will not be able to build up the [mental] duel sufficient or the return to the battle will be somewhat odd and next to each other the paces presumably will be not very pleasing, as the space of time for it is short (both concerning film lenght ** and the actual scene itself).
In the book there's another level of tension. We have a long build up of the overtaking of the fields outside the city, of the siege and we do not know that the Rohirrim is coming in time or at all (this is before the chapter The Ride of the Rohirrim while we have been informed that legions cut off the way to the north).

My point (as I don't mind if people do not concur upon) is the WK do not have to, or should not, break the staff, but he do have to make something equally apperent, direct visual life-threatening in this scene - he may not just walk in and say a few words - because this the "evil climax" (Tolkien even had his own term for this: eucatastrophe ***) when all shall feel as now it's over - directly after/at this point Rohirrim comes and the battle turns; and IMO that demands otherwise in a movie than how the book (fortunately) handles it.


Footnotes

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* The staff indeed is a lordly symbol, not a power in itself. When he fight wargs in Hollin he use a branch to send out lightning. In Moria he uses Glamdring as weapon/threat and the staff just as bridgebreaker. At Helm's Deep we do not know whatever weapon he might used. He uses it when disarming Aragorn & C/O in Fangorn but when Gandalf rides out and reject the Nazgûl assailing Faramir and the others escapin Rammas Echor he emit light from his hand. Point: it's a symbol rather than anything needed to wield his inner power as far as we are told, and thus nothing that should not be possible to be broken by a to-seemingly-maia-level empowered wraight.

** The removal of some totally made up, unneccesary scenes would enable it, I do not say otherwise.

*** eucatastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucatastrophe

Edit: I see you posted the quote as well SF ^^

Curiosa

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I consider it good they cut out Tom Bombadil, however lovely and interesting he is, since he has no value for the story development (and just like with Glorfindel he has 15 min of fame and then is utterly unrelated to the plot).
The fact that nobody arguing for his presence ever presented a reason to keep him in beside "I like Tom" is the only proof required.

[Robert Guiscard]

Now, I enjoy realism and accuracy as much as anyone here on TWC. A soldier wearing chainmail > plate armor, certain characters being included, etc., etc. But I feel like that this thread is doing is nitpicking at little details, just trying to find as many things as possible that are wrong in the movies. I admit it, I do it myself. When I was watching Kingdom of Heaven with my friend, I was pointing out all the little historical inaccuracies in the film. Did I enjoy it any less because of it? No, I didn't. Heck, one could argue that Christopher Nolan's Batman films are "lore-rape." Did Bruce Wayne ever train with the League of Shadows? Not as far as I know. Was the Joker a sadistic, amoral villain who devised the most cruel ways of mind torture as possible? Not really. I could go on, but are the Nolan Batman films bad because of these deviations from what is in the comic books? Hardly: they are some of the best films ever made.

Now LotR is a book, and its lore is more fixed than the Batman comics, but the concept is still the same.

If you look at the big picture, did these little inaccuracies detract from the message that books gave? Did it deviate so far that you could not recognize Peter Jackson's *adaptation* of LotR as being based of the J.R.R Tolkein's beloved epic novels? I couldn't. Yes, there are differences from a book to a movie: some are made to adapt to a visual medium (pacing of the movie, intriguing casual movie-goers, etc.) (by the way, great analysis Ngugi), some are made for the general non-LotR movie goer, and, perhaps, some are made for personal preference on Peter Jackson's or his designers' parts (a movie such as this does require an extensive film crew that all have ideas and opinions).
For instance, the plate armor worn by the Gondorian soldiers could have been used to distinguish them from the Rohirrim and to show that, even though weakened, Gondor still has pride and is quite capable, but still is a crumbling empire.
Instead of complaining about things that YOU would prefer someone else to handle something like Lord of the Rings, try to look at why those changes were made from the point of view of that someone else.

P.S: on Aragorn vs. FIVE (not nine!) Nazgul at Weathertop, he had the element of surprise and the Nazgul do fear fire (for one reason or another, Tolkein never specified) and are subjected to the many of the same limitations as any man at this point. It also is the first instance in the movie where Aragorn can be shown as a skilled fighter

[Bowmaster]

If you look at the big picture, did these little inaccuracies detract from the message that books gave? Did it deviate so far that you could not recognize Peter Jackson's *adaptation* of LotR as being based of the J.R.R Tolkein's beloved epic novels?

Yes.

[Ethien]

Like some others, I choose not to nitpick since I understand the semantics of producing a Hollywood film to a lesser extent. Though my sole criticism is the portrayal of Faramir and Denethor. Boromir was fine to me, as it did indicate his fall and eventual redemption, which highlighted his death (Plus I'm just a huge Sean Bean fan, despite his countless film deaths). I'd have liked to seen Denethor portrayed as a more tragic character, with whom the viewer could sympathize with even a little, much like Boromir. Instead he's portrayed as a disgusting, raving madman from the get go.

Outside of that, I'm fine with the film.

[eugenioso]

ah the old gondorian soldiers, the most pathetic soldiers in middle earth, at least according to PJ.

here is an exercise: count the total number of orcs killed by a gondorian swordsman. then the number of orcs killed by gondorian spearmen.

as a bonus: find the moment when gandalf the weak strikes an orc with his sword right on the neck, only for you to hear a wooden THUMP and the orc falling down as if that sword was laced in roofies.

[Mikail Mengsk]

I have to side against who put the absence of Tom Bombadil, Imrahil, and other characters as a major hole. The movies were loaded with characters, adding some other that weren't so necessary to the plot wasn't really needed. Tom Bombadil would, instead, be very confusing and pointless. The absence of Glorfindel himself, while i found annoying the replacement with Arwen, wasn't very disappointing.

About the battles in the rest of middle earth, there was absolutely no time to show them, but even a note in the end, spoken by Gandalf (as he does in the books) would be sufficient. I mean, PJ spent so much time and resources to bring teleporting elves to Helm's Deep, sure he could have spent a couple of minutes of Gandalf's time to talk about that.

The problem is that PJ seems to love elves and made everything in order to show the best of them. That's why Legolas is some kind of uber-superhero, Faramir doesn't resist the Ring, and there are elves at Helm's Deep instead of more Rohirrim.


For all the anti-bashers: this is a thread about what we DON'T like of the movies. Open a thread about things we LIKE of the movies and there will be plenty of posts.

[Makus]

I know I'm in the super minority here...but I liked the movie representation of faramir better than the books. I know he's supposed to be a Tolkien-like, but pjs version made him more intriguing with character development. Oh and the elves at helms deep were kinda cool, though in terms of the story seemed to have little effect.

I would've liked to see the gray company, legolas being less ridiculous, Gondorians (or any good guys not on horseback) being able to hold their own (no problems with plate armor...looked cool and helped give a roman-fantasy-imperial vibe to the kingdom and represented their diminishing culture's need to glorify itself), some development of frodo, oh and the black gate sequence was...annoying. I get that it was a latst ditch effort but Aragon acted unkingly and out of character even by pjs reworking, and it seemed like no one had any clue what they were doing.

[Gothmog 22]

can someone ewplain to me why at the hornburg theoden only had 300 men, but at dunharrow he had 5000 plus?

[Poosticks7]

can someone ewplain to me why at the hornburg theoden only had 300 men, but at dunharrow he had 5000 plus?

All the Rohirrim were on holiday.

Or hiding from the near mythical elves traipsing through their land. Would be kind of scary if you think about it.

[conon394]

can someone ewplain to me why at the hornburg theoden only had 300 men, but at dunharrow he had 5000 plus?

The 5000 is somewhat related to the back story for Rohan that was published in the Unfinished tails. The standing cavalry army of Rohan was 10,000+ (not including the foot levy which was used for defense). Theodin's son and major Lords of the East Mark had been fighting in the Saurman, but wormtounge did keep Theodin from mobilizing the other 2/3 of the army. When Theodin rides east he orders full mobilization (run by Eowyn) and takes only the men at hand because he is still hoping reinforce the army at the border, but is to late. Later Dunharrow the full Cavalry army is assembled and Theodin takes 6000 to Gondor (leaving some defense and reflecting wounded and dead of the 10,000 potential).

------------------

Unfinished Tales states that the Nazgul are "confused" during day light and avoid water when possible for some unknown reason. The Nazgul attacked at night and there was no water around. The Hobbit's daggers cannot hurt them. Aragorn even says the name Elbereth did more harm (which was none at all) than the dagger Frodo cut the WitchKing with.

Hey I replied but on the General Discussion Thread - the UT is missing some text where JRRT makes explicit the daggers are as deadly to Nazgul as the Witch Kings knife is to Frodo.

[Robert Guiscard]

For all the anti-bashers: this is a thread about what we DON'T like of the movies. Open a thread about things we LIKE of the movies and there will be plenty of posts.

I'm just responding to the overall negativity that seems to lurk in every corner of TWC: What don't we like about A, B, or C? How can we change something (those threads appeared immediately after TATW 3.0 came out)? After a while, it becomes tiring. Yes, I don't have to READ the threads, but they are still there and people have to sift through them to find more positive (or even neutral) threads

But I digress
If there is anything I did not like, it's is the lack of Easterlings everywhere except at the Black Gate. I mean, the Haradrim get plenty of screentime, where's the love for the Men of Rhun?

P.S How does Faramir NOT resist the Ring? If my memory serves me correctly, he willingly lets Frodo go, something only Aragorn was able to achieve when faced with the One Ring