Antagonist is evil because... he's evil

>antagonist is evil because... he's evil

Attached: 1582268524067.jpg (1000x563, 71.31K)

Why did the idiots make seven rings

What? Sauron made them.

He's evil cos he was corrupted by Melkor and was already obsessive with making order out of things and this spiraled into a desire to dominate.

But he's not evil because he's evil.

He's evil because he's corrupted by an evil power that was more fitting to his ideals (order, efficiency etc).

how does a leader find time to learn smithing? doesn't he have governing to do?

He was a maker first.

Why didn't the eagles just shit on the eye and blind it?

Gondor calls for a bailout!

Attached: aragorn.jpg (225x225, 5.61K)

He was originally a servant of the god of matter and crafting. Hence his obsession with making order out of disorder.

well this shit sounds very interesting to me, they couldn't fit 10 minutes to build his backstory in these 3 hour movies?

Put it this way, the prologue of the first film was recapping the very end of the Second Age. All this stuff I'm talking about happened in the First Age and before that. And he had a very long role throughout the Second. It would take a whole film to recap Sauron's whole backstory.

it's also why he looks like , he was originally very beautiful as a spirit, able to take lots of forms and often appearing as a giver of gifts, like the Rings. When he corrupted Numenor (Aragorn's ancestor's homeland, giant long lived men) and convinced them to rebel against the gods basically, the island got smited to fuck and sank under the ocean, and his form got destroyed in the process. When he reformed, he lost the ability to take on beautiful forms and could only appear as a burned and scarred figure.
Hence the armor.

It's part of a different story, m8y. If you're interested, read the books , you know, the only actual way these stories can even be told

Even forgetting the book lore explanation, sauron is thousands of years old. Surely he learned something in that time.
And yeah he's a ruler, but I would think that orcs are probably the lowest maintenance race to rule over

What purpose would that have in the context of LOTR though? By the time LOTR goes down, all that shit is ancient history even more ancient than the 15 minutes of ancient history they show at the beginning the movie, which is already a lot to take in. What would spending another 10 minutes on top of that to explain Sauron's childhood and who Morgoth was and the events of the Silmarillion, etc., etc. do to better provide context for the events of the plot than what's already provided?

Also the film were going to have a nod to this in ROTK, during that bit before the final battle where Sauron seems to speak directly to Aragorn, he was going to briefly conjure an image of his old Annatar, Giver of Gifts form, which would then transform into his armored form from the first film and fight Aragorn during the battle. But they scrapped it as they thought him fighting Sauron physically would distract from the climax with Frodo at Mt. Doom, and also that it was pretty lore breaking, since while he probably had some physical form inside the tower, Sauron wouldn't have been strong enough without his Ring to walk around brawling.
So they put in a troll instead over the footage of Sauron fighting Aragorn.

Attached: Annatar_sauron.jpg (260x299, 6.56K)

Oh and this is a big reason he needs the Ring now. Originally it just made him much more powerful and having dominion over the other rings, but after he got thrashed so much he can't hold his spirit together without the Ring now. That's what happens to him at the end of LOTR, he doesn't die but his spirit is scattered so far and low that he will never be able to affect anything again, and all his works crumbled.

he didn't make the rings, the dwarves did it.

did you even watch the movie??

oh, great, now he's a fucking communist

Did you?

What was Sauron's tax policy?

Yes, i did.

The dwarves make the rings in the moria, then Sauron decides to take them, and then he makes ONE ring to rule them all.

He's a commie, no property, no tax.

AND ROHAN WILL TRANSFER. MUSTER THE AUSTERITY!

Not every story needs a complex antagonist and 50 levels of gray morality.

Then how could he afford to have an orc army?

Good. Much better than "He is evil because he thinks he is actually good" faggotry.

"Mine"

What's the Hebrew word for friend?

Attached: Durin's_door.png (838x570, 646.08K)

Watch again...better.

*toooooooooooooooot*

Attached: 1554186006516.jpg (1920x1080, 383.25K)

Shabbos goy

read the fucking book, mate

isn't he evil because the wizards let his wife die or something?

He wanted to unify all the worlds kingdoms by way of a mass, interracial, polyamorous, pansexual marriage.

No they didn't.

Some dwarves theorized that the Ring that Thrór and Thrain processed was made by dwarven smiths, without Sauron's participation, but that was probably them trying to retcon things because it was the only remainder of the Seven.

The only Ring that weren't made by Sauron were the Three Elven ones, because Celebrimbor made them under his tutelage.

*tooooouuuueeeeeOOOOOoooOOOOOooot*

ftfy

>has no idea what the movie he claims to have watched said
>switches to demands of reading a book he never read

Sauron made the Seven Rings to corrupt the dwarves. He quite didn't manage to get it, though, becausethe dwarves were resilient to becoming specters like the nazgul. Hence why he fought the dwarves to recapture or destroy all of the Seven.

He fucked up by teaching the Elves how to make the Three, because it came back to bite him in the ass when they were used to create Rivendell and Lothlórien.

...no.

Based mentally retarded poster

>antagonist is evil because... he's evil
Errr..... no. Sauron was not evil to begin with. He hated inefficiency and Melkor just amplified this hate into an addiction for efficiency. Indeed, Sauron's desire to take over middle earth stems from his desire for industry and order. In Tolkeinverse, nature is considered exalted - and even beings who posses technology (magic) live in balance with nature. However, Sauron had no consideration for nature - only his desire for order.

By putting his desires before the the desires of others and nature, Sauron was considered evil - not because he's simply an antagonist.

Yes, it's in the book.

>how does a leader find time to learn smithing?
He was first a smith and then a leader. Not in parallel.

They were literally slaves

Oy vey, if it ishnt my beshtisht friend in da woild

>he can't hold his spirit together without the Ring now
Without the ring existing you mean. He had gained his physical body back during the war of the ring.

>ok so the main villain is named Sauron... and the other villain is named uh... Saruman

Attached: kamil-trocinski-saruman-04.jpg (1920x1536, 513.62K)

Why do you need some convoluted backstory or morally grey interpretation? Do you think it makes you smarter?

But only just.

Try reading Unfinished Tales and The Silmarilion for context.

bailout

Attached: DizzyLegitimateGoitered-small.gif (431x180, 1.15M)

I want to know what the Orcs paid in taxes

In addition to others explanations of "its not in the books" typically these licenses limit what they can pull from other material. That means they couldn't do more Sauron backstory from the Silmarillion even if Jackson had wanted to, if he didn't have the rights to adapt and film it.

Why didn't Sauron have his uruguay build a huge magnet and point it towards Frodo whenever he put the ring on?

Tolkien was inspired by George Lucas

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH

Attached: 1569514048223.jpg (1920x1080, 370.09K)

And none of that was in the movies so it doesn't matter.

Gold isn't magnetic

Hmm.

Attached: 1579427313292.jpg (1910x800, 101.06K)

No but it adds more to the character and makes the villain more interesting. Sauron is the equivalent to the bad guy from the 2nd thor movie.

it only adds characterization for readers who lack moral clarity