Dumbledore vs Sauron

[Sharpandpointies]

All great points. I'm not sure I'm "happy" about giving Sauron full-ish power in the Third Age, but your Tolkien Fu is strong.

I get it. The point I feel that seals the deal is that Gandalf the Grey is basically even with a Balrog, Gandalf the White is more powerful than a Balrog, Sauron (at the time of the Lord of the Rings) is more powerful than Gandalf the White. Whether or not he's at 100%, full tank of gas, it gives a nice, minimum bar to where he sits, and how that compares to people for whom we DO have feats (Balrog, Gandalf the Grey, etc).

In any case, I already agreed that Sauron, barring something I can't really imagine based on feats, wins this going away. It's just the how. Even if he couldn't hurt Dumbledore in the first fight, well, Dumbledore will eventually die and Sauron won't. In the next two, it's easy breezey.

That's fair enough - at this point, I'm just 'discussing'. I don't get a lot of opportunity to chat about Tolkien, so when it comes up I tend to seize it with an iron grip and throttle the hell out of it.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

I don't get a lot of opportunity to chat about Tolkien, so when it comes up I tend to seize it with an iron grip and throttle the hell out of it.

Like Melkor.

*squint*

I'm onto you.

[Sharpandpointies]

Like Melkor.

*squint*

I'm onto you.

Melkor would also pee on it to establish dominance and ownership. And spoil it for anyone else who wanted it.

I have a little more class than that.

...some would probably argue otherwise, but I like to think that way, at least.

[big_adventure]

I get it. The point I feel that seals the deal is that Gandalf the Grey is basically even with a Balrog, Gandalf the White is more powerful than a Balrog, Sauron (at the time of the Lord of the Rings) is more powerful than Gandalf the White. Whether or not he's at 100%, full tank of gas, it gives a nice, minimum bar to where he sits, and how that compares to people for whom we DO have feats (Balrog, Gandalf the Grey, etc).

Indeed - I am well and truly sold on that interpretation.

That's fair enough - at this point, I'm just 'discussing'. I don't get a lot of opportunity to chat about Tolkien, so when it comes up I tend to seize it with an iron grip and throttle the hell out of it.

That's what makes this fun, isn't it? As long as it stays civil and things don't get insulting, Rumbles is a little escapist peace for the few of us who dig integrating that into our otherwise realistic (well, duh, they're real) lives.

[big_adventure]

Melkor would also pee on it to establish dominance and ownership. And spoil it for anyone else who wanted it.

I have a little more class than that.

...some would probably argue otherwise, but I like to think that way, at least.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people, er, person willing to seriously argue that about you. Just a hunch.

[Mider2009]

Melkor would also pee on it to establish dominance and ownership. And spoil it for anyone else who wanted it.

I have a little more class than that.

...some would probably argue otherwise, but I like to think that way, at least.

So in the book could Sauron kill dozens of men with his mace?

[Cody]

I won't touch much of this, but should point out that Horcruxs' vary in durability depending on the object. I wouldn't say any of them are as durable as the ring, not even close.

[Sharpandpointies]

So in the book could Sauron kill dozens of men with his mace?

He doesn't actually DO it, so I'd be hesitant to say he could. Mostly because Sauron wasn't exactly known for being a physical rear-kicker. I mean, back in the First Age when he wanted to take on Huan, he transformed himself into a werewolf in an attempt to use the prophecy of Huan's fate to his advantage, rather than going out in armor and shield (and it spectacularly backfired on him).

Could he kick rear? Sure. He managed a tie against an Uberhuman and a First Age Noldorin Elf of high noble blood, both of them kitted out with some serious gear. But he took out Gil-Galad by incinerating him with his hand, rather than whacking him with any weapon, as an example.

There's a lot of stuff Sauron can do - basically, I would personally grant him anything his Nazgûl could pull off, various kinds of elemental control and destruction (based on the storms, his control of Mt Doom, the Witch-king's spells of destruction on the gates of Minas Tirith), control over spirits and lost spirits of the dead, shapeshifting, etc. A terrifying aura is kind of a standard thing for supernatural evil things in LotR (Shelob, Witch-king, other Nazgûl), so I don't see why Sauron couldn't muster something even worse than the Witch-king. Deadly powers over living things - his far weaker slaves who derive their power from him can use the Black Breath, as an example. Fire and heat (incineration of Gil-Galad).

He would also be a superhumanly potent fighter, I would guess, but again - all we have is his tussle with Gil-Galad and Elendil (as well as his shapeshifted fight with Huan which, again, didn't proceed well).

Likely other stuff. Telepathic powers, of course. Mental assaults. Domination. Control.

Swatting people for miles, though, might not be something he was INTERESTED in. And so never created a body capable of doing that. Could he? Probably. But again, not really his thing, whacking stuff with a mace.

Note: none of the above is stuff I'm saying is open for Rumbles' purposes, it's just my own speculation on Sauron's powers based on what he does, what we see, what his servants do, etc.

Edit: Toss on 'creation and dispelling of illusions, as well as songs of power' (his duel with Finrod).

[Mider2009]

I think Sauron had a body in the third age, I remember hearing somewhere Gollum describing him having a black hand with only 4 fingers.

So he has the power to recreate his body with time except when the ring was destroyed

[Sharpandpointies]

I think Sauron had a body in the third age, I remember hearing somewhere Gollum describing him having a black hand with only 4 fingers.

So he has the power to recreate his body with time except when the ring was destroyed

Absolutely he has a body.

And yes, Gollum does say that.

[Cody]

He doesn't actually DO it, so I'd be hesitant to say he could. Mostly because Sauron wasn't exactly known for being a physical rear-kicker. I mean, back in the First Age when he wanted to take on Huan, he transformed himself into a werewolf in an attempt to use the prophecy of Huan's fate to his advantage, rather than going out in armor and shield (and it spectacularly backfired on him).

Could he kick rear? Sure. He managed a tie against an Uberhuman and a First Age Noldorin Elf of high noble blood, both of them kitted out with some serious gear. But he took out Gil-Galad by incinerating him with his hand, rather than whacking him with any weapon, as an example.

There's a lot of stuff Sauron can do - basically, I would personally grant him anything his Nazgûl could pull off, various kinds of elemental control and destruction (based on the storms, his control of Mt Doom, the Witch-king's spells of destruction on the gates of Minas Tirith), control over spirits and lost spirits of the dead, shapeshifting, etc. A terrifying aura is kind of a standard thing for supernatural evil things in LotR (Shelob, Witch-king, other Nazgûl), so I don't see why Sauron couldn't muster something even worse than the Witch-king. Deadly powers over living things - his far weaker slaves who derive their power from him can use the Black Breath, as an example. Fire and heat (incineration of Gil-Galad).

He would also be a superhumanly potent fighter, I would guess, but again - all we have is his tussle with Gil-Galad and Elendil (as well as his shapeshifted fight with Huan which, again, didn't proceed well).

Likely other stuff. Telepathic powers, of course. Mental assaults. Domination. Control.

Swatting people for miles, though, might not be something he was INTERESTED in. And so never created a body capable of doing that. Could he? Probably. But again, not really his thing, whacking stuff with a mace.

Note: none of the above is stuff I'm saying is open for Rumbles' purposes, it's just my own speculation on Sauron's powers based on what he does, what we see, what his servants do, etc.

Edit: Toss on 'creation and dispelling of illusions, as well as songs of power' (his duel with Finrod).

This is probably where you should give the movies some credit. They did indeed give proper respect to the potential abilities of the characters. Sauron may not have actually done what we saw in the movie, but by your own admission he could have.

[Sharpandpointies]

This is probably where you should give the movies some credit. They did indeed give proper respect to the potential abilities of the characters. Sauron may not have actually done what we saw in the movie, but by your own admission he could have.

Actually, I don't give the movies credit for that.

As usual, I'm going to preface this by saying these are MY opinions; I don't tell people what they should or shouldn't like about the movies.

So, Movie Sauron falls flat on his face for me. Including what is shown of his abilities. Let's take the scene we see that we're talking about here, from the start of Fellowship.

In the books, what we get is an epic struggle between a dark, monstrous being and a couple of First and Second Age heroes. Elrond goes on about nobody could stand against the spear of Gil-Galad and the sword of Elendil. He talks about how they fought with Sauron. There are comments in other places about how that fight went. What it boils down to is that the High King of the Noldor, armed with his great spear Aeglos, and the eldest scion of the noble house of Númenor, armed with a First Age blade made by one of the greatest weapon-smiths of the time (not THE greatest, but one of), take it straight to Sauron in one hell of an epic fight - just the two of them against him. Sauron gets stabbed and cut all to hell, but crushes Elendil and busts his sword. He then grapples with Gil-Galad, and freaking incinerates the High King with the terrifying, sorcerous heat of his hand.

But Sauron himself also falls, his body basically killed by the wounds he has received.

Isildur walks up to the fallen Sauron with his father's broken sword, and cuts the Ring from his finger; that's the end of it, without the Ring, Sauron can't even attempt to hold his broken body together and he's finished.

What do we get in the movies?

Sauron basically pimp-slaps Gil-Galad - who is just some no-name with a spear and a crown, we don't see anything from him - away along with sundry other elves. He swats Elendil down like he's nothing. Isildur then gets a lucky shot in that cuts the Ring off Sauron's hand...and this kills Sauron? Somehow?

[me] *watching in theatre* wat

Totally lacks any kind of gravitas for me, completely misses the epic struggle, doesn't showcase Sauron as anything but 'super-strength'. And the people he fights? They're effectively nobodies for all they stand out; there's no epic struggle, there's just 'one guy gets a lucky shot'.

It misses the mark completely, for me. So no credit there.

Similarly with Sauron's FINAL appearance.

In the books, when the Ring is destroyed, we get this:

"And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretch towards them a vast, threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell."

Holy crap.

So then I watched the movies. Here, starting around 2:00. We have a panicked eyeball helplessly looking around, like 'ahh, I'm falling!' Then it poofs out like a lightbulb exploding, and we have a shockwave. Similarly to Sauron's first appearance, it's missing something big for me compared to the book.

And this is why I don't give credit for that, either.

Did the movies do some stuff right? Sure.

Do I have a problem with people liking the movies? Nope (though, oddly, a lot of people seem to have a problem with me NOT liking the movies). And yeah, lots of people DID like the movies. Good stuff, glad people enjoyed them. ^_^

Do *I* like the movies? Also nope, hate 'em with a passion (other than Fellowship, and I admit to never seeing Hobbit III because by that point I was so disgusted by Jackson's stuff that I didn't bother).

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

The way I like to sum it up, the difference between the two films, is pretty much:

The Lord of the Rings movies are good movies, from a literal genre redefining source. They're (the movies) coherent, don't have any glaring flaws or inconsistencies... but this comes at the expense of the source material and its characters.

... which sorta dovetails into:

In a way, no movie would've lived up to them (the books) and I'd at least give credit to Jackson for not trying (but trying harder than with the Hobbit). While also attempting to retain the main themes and thrust of the works he was adapting.

He just... didn't make Lord of the Rings movies, say.

[Sharpandpointies]

The way I like to sum it up, the difference between the two films, is pretty much:

The Lord of the Rings movies are good movies, from a literal genre redefining source. They're (the movies) coherent, don't have any glaring flaws or inconsistencies... but this comes at the expense of the source material and its characters.

... which sorta dovetails into:

In a way, no movie would've lived up to them (the books) and I'd at least give credit to Jackson for not trying (but trying harder than with the Hobbit). While also attempting to retain the main themes and thrust of the works he was adapting.

He just... didn't make Lord of the Rings movies, say.

Fair assessment, CoR. ^_^ I would say it missed a few themes as well, but at that point I AM nit-picking. I get what you're trying to say here, and it makes sense.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

Fair assessment, CoR. ^_^ I would say it missed a few themes as well, but at that point I AM nit-picking. I get what you're trying to say here, and it makes sense.

eh, I mean most movie-goers aren't going to be aware of all the themes in the books; and I doubt man of them would care even. So Peter went for the braindead ones. Triumph of good over evil, big things small packages, "big spooky eyeballs is bad". In much the same way as say, MCU movies (the early ones, the ones now, shows in particular... oof) they took the easiest to identify aspects of each character and built around them to create a compelling story. Problem with LotR in that respect was... the characters and story were already compelling, and Peter had to cut aspects away to make it marketable to the masses over catering to the small group of fans... and it certainly shows.