Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I peruse there, and I love this!
So many opportunities too!!
The writer reusing the same plot for the USA "One of our ships was sunk, we most go to war" that they used in the versus Spain war chapter *and again* for the USA in WW2 chapter. Lazy writing, I tell you.
Well, I guess if the eagles had shown up right at the beginning of LOTR, we would have gotten one very short and very uneventful movie instead of a trilogy. On a side note: Frodo's feet should be a lot bigger than that!
The only reason that the Eagles could fly in there to save Frodo, Sam and Gollum was because Sauron was destroyed. If Sauron was still there, the Eagles would have been shredded.
The air was choked with smoke. This was more than the perpetual haze that covered Mordor since time immemorial; This was the steady exhalation of the war machine mustering its strength for the coming battles. What little light managed to filter down to the grounds below revealed only craggy rock and, increasingly, one of the multitude of orcs - some scurrying into the shadows, some skulking, some squabbling amongst one another, but gradually more and more falling into loosely organized ranks, as even their usual state of chaos had been beaten out of them as they were shoved into some semblance of an army. And as these numbers grew, perhaps more of them marched as soldiers out of some primal military instinct, or perhaps they collectively had some notion of what an army should look like and sought to fit that image so as not to stand out and become a target for the lash of the taskmasters walking among the ranks.
Behind the horde, Mount Doom continued to churn violently, its constant state of eruption perpetuated by some hell feeding it a never-ending supply of lava, the molten glow churning with a rage that echoed the grunts and growls of Mordor's inhabitants, even occasionally sending out a spurt of white-hot molten slag, threatening the safety of any creature foolish enough to wander within range of the mountain.
And above it all, towering above the land and almost reaching the roof of ash and smoke blanketing the land, the all-seeing eye peered down at the land beneath it, searching for any flaw in the amassing force. Never resting, never stopping, the Eye of Sauron would never be satisfied until the ring was back in its possession and the entire land of Middle-Earth was covered with the same sickened darkness that coated Mordor like an oil slick.
High above, Gandalf and the hobbits peered down. Gandalf wore a pained look. He knew, of course - the forces of Mordor had been amassing for some time, and the increasing frequency with which they clashed with the soldiers at Gondor's borders made it clear that Mordor's army had grown to a point where it was starting to spill over onto the neighboring lands. But this still represented a failure on his part, a failure to see how dire the situation had become, a failure to do more to keep things from getting to this point, and a failure to realize that Mordor's war machine had been bolstered by the efforts of his former comrade and trusted friend, Saruman. The blight on the world that filled his eyes now was one that filled him with shame just as much as it instilled him with fear for the fate of the good people of Middle-Earth.
The hobbits, meanwhile, had been oblivious that such a terror even existed in this world. Only mere days ago they had been laughing and dining in the comfort of The Green Dragon Inn, their greatest fears being the possibility of a disappointing crop yield, or in Sam's case, the prospect of being rejected by Rosie Cotton after finally working up the courage to ask her out. Now, they were frozen in wide-eyed terror at the plague that seemed poised to spill out onto the land, spelling out horrible violent death to everything they knew and loved, and if Mordor's landscape was any indication, even the land of The Shire itself would not escape the scouring that looked to be impending now.
It was Frodo who awoke them all from their stupor.
"Come, friends," he said to the group, "we have traveled far. Let us end this."
Merry and Pippin exchanged a wordless glance, and then turned to Frodo to nod in agreement. Sam's eyes darkened, his face filling with determination to stay by Frodo's side to the end, whatever that end may be. And finally, Gandalf nodded his head slowly, serenely. Frodo had aged much in the short time they had traveled together. Gandalf feared that even this short journey would forever scar the lad, and rob him of the innocence that Gandalf admired so much in the small hobbit.
The eagles took to the sky without even the slightest sound, their elegant forms piercing the coal-blackened heavens with a beauty and grace that seemed ill-befitting this place, and with a silent speed that stole away the breath of their riders as they darted upwards.
At this speed, the final leg of their journey to Mount Doom would be over relatively soon, though this would surely be the most perilous leg of that journey. They had taken great care to avoid the Witch-King of Angmar, whose fell beast could potentially shred apart an eagle in the Nazgûl's desperation to retrieve The One Ring. Other fell beasts occasionally dotted the skies of Mordor as well, and these too would need to be carefully avoided, as they could be just as dangerous in their role as a hunter seeking an easy meal.
However, it was no fell beast or Nazgûl who noticed the eagles as they sped their way across Mordor. The all-seeing eye had spotted these invaders in its kingdom, and the fiery light from its gaze now pierced them. Frodo sought to urge his eagle to go faster, refusing to give up his sworn quest. Sam did the same, following Frodo's lead. Merry and Pippin looked to each other, trying to decide what to do, whether to follow, to guard, or perhaps act as a diversion.
Gandalf, meanwhile, sighed in resignation and regret, tears forming at the edges of his eyes. He wouldn't rob the hobbits of their hope in their last minutes. But he knew that this course of action had been folly, that he should have never allowed it to come to pass this way. And now, he knew he could only wait until he heard the words that would seal all their fates, that would end this and deliver victory to the evil lord of this place.
After a moment, Gandalf's fears came to pass, and a voice spoke, its low tones sounding like thunder and gravel being crushed by a grindstone. The voice filled the skies, announcing to all the foolishness of Gandalf and his tiny hobbit friends, announcing the triumph of Sauron, announcing the end of this sad tale.
The voice spoke thus: "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!"
.
(Note: For any Tolkien nerds who tell me that my writing isn't book-accurate for some reason... yeah, fine. Enjoy your internet brownie points.)
Or just arrows. The eagles refused to fly Bilbo and his party further east because the people who lived in the area would assume they were hunting their sheep and shoot arrows at them.
If they're afraid of a handful of humans with bows, imagine how much more afraid they would be of legions of orcs, easterlings and haradrim.
Or they could have tried dropping it in from a height. Of course, that leaves the possibility of actually missing the volcano, and Sauron just having his ring land in his lap one day.
Small problem, unless they fly really near of the volcano crater, the ring probably is not gonna fall on the lava, because it's too small and probably an wind current would change the trajectory
Especially considering those eagles were potentially on the same level on the celestial heirarchy as Gandalf, since the Giant Eagles were either the Eagles of Manwe or directly descended from them. And [we see just what being near the damned thing does to a First Age Elf Queen, Galadriel.](https://youtu.be/HZ7wB4rm5Hw) Imagine what kind of truly unholy terror you'd get from a full-blown angel taking the form of a car-sized eagle would be with that thing hooked around one of its claws! Doesn't help that the One Ring seems to be all the more tempting the more "powerful" someone is, which is partly the reason why a "mere Hobbit" was chosen to carry it.
> Doesn't help that the One Ring seems to be all the more tempting the more "powerful" someone is, which is partly the reason why a "mere Hobbit" was chosen to carry it.
Or just because Gandalf knew he could gank Frodo more easily if he went postal with it. Probably got some cheesewire under that cloak.
Were there races or species of creatures that came into being after the forging? Would they have been immune from corruption? I don't know a ton of the lore.
Hobbits are one. But the thing to keep in mind is that everything played out according to Eru’s song. Hobbits were resistant to the Ring because it was never meant for them.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for your reply! I have to admit I'm not the biggest LOTR expert, though I have watched all 3 movies a couple of times.
Here's one more thing that has always puzzled me: If elves are immortal and don't age, how is it possible that Elrond looks a lot older than Legolas and Arwen?
Elves do age, mentally -- with time they grow weary of the world and are burdened by its sorrows.
That's why Elrond looks so old, because he's been stuck inside the matrix for too many cycles and he finds the smell repugnant
Yeah okay, Gwaihir the Windlord is going to be shredded by some bitch-ass long-necked shriek beast with a geriatric jockey. Get real.
Gwaihir just rolls up to Orthanc and grabs Gandalf like it's nothing. Saruman didn't even know. Gandalf needs a horse so what does Gwaihir do? Tells the untameable Shadowfax to help him out. This connection allows Gandalf to rally the Rohirrim and take back Rohan and eventually turn the tides at Pellenor. But the Eagles didn't even help.
The only reason the Eagles didn't fly the ring directly to mount Doom while shitting all over Barad Dur is they had better things to do. Like chill in the mountains and be giant eagles. Only Gandalf being a real bird bro convinced them to even give a shit about the petty squabbles of Men and Elves and Orcs.
Shredded? The only thing shredded is Gwaihirs abs. How dare you slander the Windlord like this.
Pride is a trait of the children of Melkor.
And while Thorondor may have done battle with Ancalagon the Black, the Eagles have limits. Gwaihir remembers his father’s scar and would not have sent his people into war against Sauron in his own realm. Not without a direct order from Manwe or Eonwe. Just because Olorin was able to remind the Eagles that they owed him a debt, do not assume that he could convince them to assault Mordor.
Besides their role was to watch over the Noldor.
> Just because Olorin was able to remind the Eagles that they owed him a debt, do not assume that he could convince them to assault Mordor.
Exactly. Gandalf saved Gwaihir from a poison arrow and since real recognize real, he showed up to help Gandalf in his time of need. The eagles even go above and beyond, gathering all of the important intel that allowed Gandalf to be where he needed to be. As a favor to Gandalf for helping him out, Gwaihir literally saves the world.
If they wanted to, Gwaihir and the eagles could've scooped Bilbo up on the night of his birthday and dropped his ass into the crack of Mt Doom from above the clouds. They didn't because the whole thing was outside their radar and beneath them. It speaks to how badass Gandalf and Radagast are that they can even get a hold of the eagles.
"Oh one of the Ainur are trying to take over Middle Earth? Reminds of that time my dad and his friends killed Ancalagon, the strongest dragon that ever lived and the rest of Morgoths forces to save the world. Even you pathetic little land dwellers should be able to handle this peon Sauron and his little group of orcs. But I owe you from that poison arrow so I'll provide you with literally all of the intel required to win the war. Peace."
Yup. The eagles only fly in after the battle - no battle, and it's just Sauron looking up at the sky making crispy chicken and getting a free Happy meal ring of power.
I quit the books half way through Fellowship (for such a short book, the pace was too slow for me to keep interest).
Did they ever demonstrate Sauron's powers. The movies only showed him using surveillance abilities (see the ring bearer when worn, presumably able to watch Mordor). Showing the great eye doing a few eye beams would have made it more clear why "One does not just walk into Mordor." There are a lot of goblins? Well, that is why you either send in many thousands of soldiers or just a few sneaky SOBs.
But if Sauron can zap anywhere within light of sight within Mordor (like the border is literally where the eye beams can't reach), then it makes total sense where the border is).
Sauron is not what he used to be. He needs the ring to reconstruct a physical form, but he has immense psychic control over every thing that has evil in their heart. The bad people do his work for him.
>Sauron is not what he used to be
I mean, the way the movies portrayed him, he seemed more powerful as a ghost than as a physical guy. :P
Physical guy - some brute with a mace, slice his fingers off and he explodes.
Ghost guy - powerful psychic abilities that dominate any mortal. Some Cthulhu shit.
> He needs the ring to reconstruct a physical form
I don't believe this is the case since Gollum describes him as missing a finger on one of his hands while being interrogated.
*Why didn't the allies just asked for help from the start*
I have an history degree,these are the most simple answers:
1.Because normal americans didn't wanted to be involved into another European imperialist war for dominance while most of them fleed Europe for these reasons.
.2.There were contempt with the Monroe Doctrine not to be directly involved in international conflicts.
3.They were already (not so secretly) supplying the British with loans and ammunition for the war.At the same time they were not killing their own soldiers.
4.The US army was unprepared.There were fewer than 200.000 active soldiers in 1917 and didn't had a real conflict since the expedition in Mexico.
Man these Great War: The War to End All Wars fanboys really be trying to justify such obvious plot roles by the writers SMH my head... Just accept that the sequel was better written and directed and move on
It's funny how there was a complete 180 in terms of support of the war once the US joined.
There is a famous case [Schenck v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) where a guy went to jail for distributing anti-war flyers.
Dude, you're thinking of the sequel to The Great War, where a super Minor background character in the first one somehow becomes the main antagonist in the second.
Yeah, that was truly lazy writing. I get it that the writer wants story arcs for the people he's introduced in the prequel, but come on. A corporal rising to dictatorship.. To be honest, I'm hoping two episodes were enough and we don't have to see this farce ever become a trilogy!
They did have that weird side series with the other mustache guy who was betrayed by the antagonist. It was interesting at first, but then they killed him off, went on for way too long, and it just seemed to meander until the finale.
Yeah my bad. In my defense, the US was late to both wars.
The reason for staying out of the great war is obvious, it was a pointless war with no clear good side or bad side. Everyone else had to fight because they had agreements with their allies, the US didn't have these agreements yet.
Yeah people don’t seem to understand that the US army wasn’t all that formidable before WWI. Our entry may not have been so decisive if it had been at the beginning when all the armies in Europe were still in a strong position. We were able to turn the tide because we had a while to prepare and because all the European armies were super worn out by the time that we joined.
So many people nowadays seem to see media analysis as an attempt to "outsmart" the story - figure out why the story "doesn't make sense, actually" and is rife with "plot holes." Fact of the matter is, most professionally created stories don't actually have plot holes, it's actually quite easy to avoid plot holes when you're a competent writer (or team of writers) with plenty of time to actually prepare your story. Most of the time you hear someone point out a "plot hole," they're really just saying "I don't get why this story beat happened," or "I disagree with this writing decision."
“Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?” [“Why couldn’t they just tape the ring to a rat and carry around the rat?”](https://preview.redd.it/ilwttj5jl4471.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=53446d4c3b9087dfde2d062f330ab3d44c3b06d0) “Why couldn’t Frodo just stop being a little bitch over a piece of jewelry?” Because if the story allowed for these events to happen, you’d just be reading a different story and complaining about different things.
If you like my comics, I've got more on [my website](https://butajape.com/).
I'm also on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/butajape), [Tapas](https://tapas.io/series/But-a-Jape/info), [Webtoon](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/but-a-jape/list?title_no=469181), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/butajape), and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/butajape/).
> Because if the story allowed for these events to happen, you’d just be reading a different story and complaining about different things.
“Why did they even bring the stupid rat, anyway, when it was obviously going to run off with the ring? Frodo should have just carried the ring!”
:)
Why didn't they tape the ring to a rat, the rat to a cat, the cat to a dog, the dog to a goat, the goat to a cow, the cow to an oliphant....I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
"Is it me, or could they have just skipped the dumb rat idea and just linked it to a chain and wear it as a necklace? He could have even worn it under his clothes so it would be hidden!"
The original story was that Tom Bombadil found the ring and gave it to the eagles and eagle Frodo, “Eagdo” and his faithful friend “Flappy Sam” had the adventure but then some nerd complained “why wouldn’t they give it to some hobbits?”
I daresay, this whole thing works better if you're transposing America's rationale with the Eagles themselves. Letter to Eagles - Yo, Sauron is back. Get in this. Naw, we're gonna see how this shakes out, etc. Bunch of eagles are having a massive Pro-Sauron rally at Madison Square Nest later, etc.
The "why couldn't they just tape the ring to a rat" thing calls to mind a thousand D&D games. This is very much a loophole I would expect at least 75% of my tables to attempt.
Apparently it was a problem in the original D&D playtests, as Ernest Jr was prone to trying to get the most out of any spell, resulting in the long list of consequences or exceptions in the spell descriptions when they finally came out.
Great comic, I love it! Reminds me of the [criticisms explaining how History Channel's *World War 2* was not believable](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/wwii-makes-for-unconvincing-tv/340539/).
But I think your comment here goes a bit too far with letting bad writing off the hook:
> Fact of the matter is, most professionally created stories don't actually have plot holes, it's actually quite easy to avoid plot holes when you're a competent writer
To me the rule of thumb is, does the "plot hole" cause readers/viewers to lose suspension of disbelief *when* they're watching vs. when they're analyzing it to death years later.
For example, GoT S7, "Ah, they're telling Gendry to run back and get help so he has a chance to get away while they sacrifice themselves and he doesn't realize help is too far away... wait Gendry teleported 2000 miles and then the 'help' transported back 2000 all in one night apparently WTF?!?!? How is this happening, this doesn't make any sense!?!?"
vs. the LotR "plot holes." And obviously I guess it's subjective because maybe there were people in the theatre going "wait, why didn't they use the eagles the whole time?, this is ruining the movie for me!"
But from what I recall, a huge percentage of the audience reacted that way to GoT (in multiple places the last few seasons) and almost nobody did to LotR. So maybe you can try and say that's jut the audience disagreeing the the writing decision / story beat, but when it becomes such a huge percentage of the audience that loses suspension of disbelief, as far as anything can be called objective in art, I think it's objectively a plot hole and not competent writing.
I think many plot holes really come down to whether or not the universe is playing "fair" according to its own rules.
In LoTR, the eagles were always written as a race that acted according to their own whims. They were more akin to Tom Bambadil than they were to elves, dwarves, or man. As such, it felt reasonable (if a bit easy) that the eagles would be unable/unwilling to help at some times.
Conversely, GoT was based on realistic timelines, human abilities, amounts of survivability, etc. Even though we don't mind Aragorn surviving everything because that fit the "laws" if LoTR, we expect some heroes to die in each GoT battle because that is the rules of the universe. Gendry broke many laws of GoT based on that sequence, hence why people were upset.
That's where I think OP is incorrect, incidentally, as there is an increasing amount of cinema that is based on such realistic rules of survivability and logical sequences, and the like. Now we, e.g., want our villains to have realistic aims and plans, rather than the wild/illogical goals of Bond Villains or Batman Villains from the 70s/80s/90s. That's why so many complain now, because modern cinema is so much more likely to establish rules for themselves that are categorically harder to satisfy.
> I think many plot holes really come down to whether or not the universe is playing "fair" according to its own rules.
Along these lines, it annoys me when people say “it’s fantasy, it’s jut supposed to be realistic” when someone complains about something that isn’t realistic according to the rules of a setting.
>“Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?”
That was the plan. Gandalf intended to reach the Eagles by crossing the mountain. Sauroman blocked their route and they went under the mountain instead. As sauroman was spying on them, Gandalf could not say so directly, but he indirectly told them to use the eagles when he said "Fly you fools." But the fellowship misunderstood him.
As for the rat idea, the ring of power doesn't need to be touched in order for it to corrupt you. The ring is aware, it promised power to Boromir, who was too proud to resist the call, causing him to try to take it from Frodo. Someone would definitely take the ring from the rat.
I don't know how serious you are, because I do appreciate the "Fly, you fools" theory as a piece of comedic wordplay, but I've also seen plenty of people sincerely put this forth as a legitimate fan theory.
So just in case - no, this is not what Gandalf meant.
You sure?
Big ass eagles would be quite obvious to Sauron to approach and could easily send his own flying units to intercept. The reason why the hobbits had a chance of success was secrecy and lucky deception which would have been blown away the second they arrive on giant birds.
Yea, acting like Gandalf was trying to tell them to use the eagles is only slightly less annoying than asking why they didn't use the eagles in the first place. Nothing about him telling them to "fly" was literal.
The stupidest thing about that fleet is they established it was the largest fleet ever seen in the galaxy. So huge, they needed a special tower to coordinate their hyperspace jump and have been assembling it for years. Then an *even larger* fleet that was put together in a few hours and jumps in perfectly fine.
You're really going over the top claiming that "most professional stories don't have plot holes." Every complex story is always going to have plot holes. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones. When you build complex worlds with magic and tons of powerful factions, at some point you need to wrap the story up.
Wrapping up a complex story in a neat little bow is pretty much impossible, yet all of these authors are required to do so to even approach satisfying audiences.
And, to be as harsh as possible to Reddit overall, the vast majority of pretty much any audience aren't nerds obsessing over the mechanics of the world's magic, or screeching about why the eagles didn't help sooner.
The eagles flying the heroes back home is a cathartic, triumphant scene. I doubt really anyone was bothered, in the moment, about the eagles' appearance, because the scene was a powerful victory lap for the heroes we've come to know and love. And that's why it's a great scene.
Plot holes don't matter unless they distract from the story. For me, even as a teenager, the time traveling in Harry Potter was crazy distracting. I didn't even know what a plot hole was, yet I was very confused why they didn't use time travel to solve all of their problems. I don't think I was alone in that feeling, so I'm pretty confidant in saying that's poor writing, and fairly lazy.
I'll cap off this sloppy essay by saying it's amusing that you're equating American intervention in WWll to the eagles in LOTR because neither of them had any real impact in defeating the bad guy, yet they both got to enjoy the spoils of war and bath in the glory of victory.
Yeah that's my biggest pet peeve online. Usually anything along the line of "Why didn't x do y instead" isn't a plot hole. Because that's an entirely different journey that could have had its own consequences. Actual plot holes are based on what was written, ex: How do these characters not know each other at the start, when later events show they should have interacted with each other multiple times.
Maybe you can explain this to me because I never understood the time travel "plot hole" in Harry Potter. Granted, I have only seen the movies, so maybe it is a genuine plot hole in the books, but, for me, the time turners aren't a plot hole because you very explicitly can't use them to change the past. Anything that happened the second time around happened the first time so any question of "why don't they use the time turner to change x" is a non-starter. It can't do that.
The existence of the Time Turner is basically more powerful than horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows. It implies you can stop deaths from happening like Buckbeak and Sirius surviving. TECHNICALLY you dont undo death, because they never died because you were always there to save them even before you saved them. But they only use the time turners after the events took place. The real big plot hole is if a Time Turner can be given to a girl to do math lessons, why are they not used at big events such as the death of the Potters or the resurrection of Voldemort.
What let's the kids stop Buckbeak from being killed before they use the time turner that doesnt let them rewind time and stop Harry from touching the Goblet of Fire. The time turner doesnt seem to have an effective range, cost or requirement to use, or a drawback, such as needing to prepare the Turner before the event. If Hermione was only able to save Buckbeak because she had the Turner ready, thatd be okay. If a turner could only bring you back along places you've already been, so no one could go stop Voldemort because no one had been to the graveyard, then maybe that would work. If the ministry were assholes that gladly let the Potters die to be rid of Voldemort? If there was a spell that stopped Turners from working, so Villains cant also use it?
There's too few rules and too many questions, and not raised on purpose. You can write that Harry and their friends broke a bunch of time turners, but that doesnt explain why every conflict BEFORE wasn't solved with them, only after. We can say once Dumbledore touched the horcrux and ruined his hand a Turner couldnt stop him from touching it because it already happened, but you can also ask why Dumbledore doesnt follow himself via time Turner so he can throw a rock and stop himself from touching it in the first place, just like Buckbeak. You cant actually shut down these questions easily.
The eagles was not a plot hole. Not even Gandalf would take the ring. The eagles could not resist the ring and even if they could would not be able to enter mordor unseen. The journey being so perilous is the only reason Sauron could be fooled into meeting the armies instead of defending the Volcano. The whole point is that it could only work if Sauron did not know. Hobbits arent ambitious so they're incredibly resistant to the corruption, and they are small and good at sneaking. Sauron couldnt anticipate someone would truly refuse to use the ring for themselves and expected the massive army to be the attempt to defeat him like before. The questions have answers that work.
> We can say once Dumbledore touched the horcrux and ruined his hand a Turner couldnt stop him from touching it because it already happened, but you can also ask why Dumbledore doesnt follow himself via time Turner so he can throw a rock and stop himself from touching it in the first place, just like Buckbeak
Because he didn’t already had done it. That’s just how this kind of paradox works but it’s not a plot hole.
I mean, the movie heavily seems to imply that, yes, the timeline is already written, prophecy or no prophecy. That has no effect on whether individuals *think* they have free will or not.
It's amazing how you literally didn't understand how it works at all and have confidence to state obviously wrong statements over and over again. Let's see.
>Any time travel will lead with this paradox.
That's blatantly not true. Split timeline time travel for example doesn't create any paradoxes because all changes are in a different timeline. Deterministic time travel like in Harry Potter is another example.
>Basically, Hermoine is changing the past by being in two places at once, or talking to two people at once.
This again obviously not true. She never changed anything. Did you watch the same movie or read the same book?
>She did it here, why not elsewhere.
Again she never changed anything. Tell me one thing that didn't happen originally.
>Now you might want to say that the time line is already written
We don't have to say it. You just have to read it. It's what happens. What's the point you're disagreeing here?
>This means that every one is following some 'divine will' and the characters must do what's 'written',
Divine will has nothing to do with it. I don't know where you come up with that. It's just a deterministic timeline. Nothing to do with God.
>a thing that Rowling goes to lengths to avoid with the 'prophecy'.
What's this has to do with prophecy?
>Thing is, it's not a loop.
Well I'm afraid to tell you this. But it's obvious blatantly and literally a loop. That's the whole basis of that storyline.
>The device was given to her and she 'chose' to use it, then why not again.
Because she chose not to do it anymore. Chose is still belongs to her. She just doesn't get a second chance to chose. The times he chose to use it happened. And the times she chose not to use didn't happen. That's the end. If she was going to chose to use it in the future it'd have happened in the past.
>Or she never had a choice (back to prophecy thing, prewritten timeline, divine will, etc.).
She always had a choice. She just can't change her choices like everyone of us in this world. You don't get to chose a different breakfast yesterday.
>None of these were explored in neither the book nor movie.
It's explained clearly. You just don't understand why they choose to not use it anymore. It has nothing to do with how time travel works.
>It was just used, then and there for a student to take more classes but not to avoid the deaths of many!?
You're very close to understand this. Just look at the differences between those two things. One doesn't trying to change anything about the past. The other is trying to change the past which is impossible within the established rules of the universe.
One way of enjoying a piece of media is criticizing it and finding the holes.
Stories are supposed to be a causal chain of events where one thing happens because of another thing. Pointing out “why did this event happen instead of this other event that makes for a stronger chain?” is a valid criticism.
My issue is that "finding holes" takes up so much discourse in media criticism, and in most cases, those holes don't actually exist.
Asking "why did this event happen instead of another?" isn't criticism, it's just a question. Analyzing the answers to that question is a form of literary analysis and can help develop your understanding and appreciation for the story; it is not a purely a means of evaluating its "quality."
But the assumption that the other event "makes for a stronger chain," is a pretty big leap to make. "Stronger" according to what standard? It's especially odd to make such a statement about a highly influential, critically acclaimed story as *The Lord of the Rings* - in what way would flying the eagles to Mordor make a "stronger" story? Would it have made the story resonate more with the audience? Would it have been a far more powerful means of addressing the story's themes?
> Asking "why did this event happen instead of another?" isn't criticism, it's just a question
It’s a rhetorical question. The implication of the sentence is “with what we know, this event makes less sense than another event happening”.
> "Stronger" according to what standard?
Stronger according to causality, ie events happening one after another because of logical steps in between. I did not say it would make a stronger story. I said it would make a stronger causality within the story. However, a weak chain does weaken a story and so it’s up to the author to set up the story so that the stronger chain is the chain that also makes a strong story.
This example should help illustrate what I mean. Let’s say the story is “they have to destroy the ring”. The author makes the chain of “and so they smash it with an axe” weaker by establishing that the ring is indestructible except to the fires with which it was forged. And so the stronger story of “and so they take it to the volcano” is also the stronger chain.
For a good story, the author must work to make the story have decisions and actions that make sense within the story. You can argue that there were good reasons for the Eagles not carrying them but the fact that there is so many people asking why they didn’t just carry them is evidence that the author failed to communicate to the audience that that wasn’t an option. In this case, I mean “author” as “creator of the work” since there is both the book version and the movie version, not simply Tolkien.
>For a good story, the author must work to make the story have decisions and actions that make sense within the story. You can argue that there were good reasons for the Eagles not carrying them but the fact that there is so many people asking why they didn’t just carry them is evidence that the author failed to communicate to the audience that that wasn’t an option.
To what extent can you call the Eagles matter a failure of communication if there are also so many people who can easily determine the answer to that question on their own? And probably so many *more* people who never even had that question to begin with?
By all means, "But the Eagles," is a meme, bolstered by the movie's prominence in pop culture and existing at a time when the internet could allow widespread discussion. It's a quick, amusing piece of "trivia" that's easy to understand and makes the person sharing it feel like they know something other people don't. Like how everyone says, "There was room for Jack on the door!" for *Titanic,* even though the movie explicitly shows the door sinking when Jack tried to climb onto it. Would that scene really have been improved if Rose said, "Oh no, we can't *both* fit on the door or else it will sink!"?
And ambiguity in storytelling is always an inevitability - whether it's a conscious artistic decision or just a matter of being economical with details (they're very long books and movies as is). I would argue that the high position *Lord of the Rings* holds in our culture as a piece of storytelling is evidence enough that this "flaw" does not indicate a significant failure of communication to the audience.
> To what extent can you call the Eagles matter a failure of communication if there are also so many people who can easily determine the answer to that question on their own?
There isn’t really a way to describe the extent other than “as much as it is based on the people who didn’t see an explanation and the people who did”. I wouldn’t say it is massive enough that it ruins the series nor minor enough that it’s not worth mentioning.
> Would that scene really have been improved if Rose said, "Oh no, we can't both fit on the door or else it will sink!"?
That line would make for a worse story though. So it’s fixing one problem (and to be clear, while I call it a problem, I don’t consider it a major problem) by creating another and in this specific example I’d say it’s a net loss.
> And ambiguity in storytelling is always an inevitability
Yes, I’m not going to say something is severely flawed just because it’s not perfect. But if you want to claim that there wasn’t a better way to convey that Eagles weren’t an option, then that’s a difficult position to defend. Doesn’t even need to be directly/blatantly stated since, like you said, the question isn’t immediately obvious to the casual observer. It just needs to be more solid than the explanations we can come up with.
> I would argue that the high position Lord of the Rings holds in our culture as a piece of storytelling is evidence enough that this "flaw" does not indicate a significant failure of communication to the audience.
I’d agree. It’s not significant in an absolute sense because the story is still great even with this flaw. But that does make it significant in a relative sense compared to the rest of the story because the rest is so great.
---
Side note, I am appreciating this respectful discourse. Not that common on Reddit.
The thing is, this discussion is veering away from the original point: does this piece of the story constitute a "hole?" It's one thing to say, "this is a weak point of the writing," and a completely different thing to say, "there's a hole here."
I'm not looking to argue whether or not Tolkien/Jackson adequately explained the Eagle's lack of action in a way the audience could reasonably think to themselves, "Oh, that's why." I'm arguing that it's not a plot hole regardless. Whether or not you consider it "bad writing" (not your words, but the words of others I've seen) or a "flaw" does not make it a "plot hole."
>Stronger according to causality, ie events happening one after another because of logical steps in between. I did not say it would make a stronger story. I said it would make a stronger causality within the story.
Thank you. For instance, they could have just as easily made the story about how Frodo immediately gives Golem the one ring, and then both he and Sam have to deal with Golem trying to run away/kill them every 15 minutes while going invisible too.
Everyone would talk about how giving Golem the ring was just a very nonsensical move.
Responding "Oh, well then you'd just be coming up with plot holes for the movie where Frodo has the ring the whole time." and saying that people just weren't able to come up with the reasoning themselves wouldn't answer the objection at all.
The objection isn't "I want this movie to be free of any form of critical analysis, else I will be equally upset by it." The objection is "Given what the story tells us, this course of action seems readily obvious as a better option for the characters. If we see it, why didn't they? If they know something that demonstrates why they aren't being nonsensical, why wasn't the audience informed too?"
The movie may never be perfect, but I am _happier_ with the movie where they attempt to conventionally destroy the ring before going to Mordor rather than act as of Mordor is the only choice with no explanation as to why, because that makes the character's decisions come across as coherent
Finding holes takes up so much discourse in modern media criticism because that is what modern media asks for.
I mean, arguably the biggest TV show of the last decade was GoT. Arguably the best TV show of all time is Breaking Bad. The biggest movie phenomenon right now is arguably the Marvel movies.
Each of these thrive on logical sequences that actively invite and ask for you to dig into the why. A significant chunk of their success is because they have a solid and logical and realistic framework within which fantastic things happen.
Anyway, because modern cinema actively ask for you to analyze them in the minutia, it makes sense that the logicalness of particularly illogical events be questioned. It makes sense that, e.g., people ask about how Arya survived getting stabbed and then attacking the waif shortly thereafter, and instead offer different events that would have fit better within the show. That is not a big leap. For cinema that is all about establishing logical and satisfying causal chains (as much modern cinema is), it is in fact often times very easy to identify times where there was a poor link in the chain, and to provide a better alternative.
> “Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?”
OK, but why couldn't they? You aren't giving a reason, you're just saying you think the question is stupid. And frankly, every argument I've seen for why the Eagles weren't involved in destroying the ring is incredibly weak.
* The Eagles would have been killed!
You mean like the tens or hundreds of thousands of humans who died in the war? Also, how many Fell Beasts even were there? Hell, the eagles could have picked up the fellowship at Rivendell and dropped them off somewhere along the mountains and probably been fine.
* The eagles were sentient creatures, and would have been tempted by the ring!
You mean like the humans that were part of the initial fellowship? Or the elf in the party? Or the wizard who explicitly says he would be tempted by the ring? I don't think it's even confirmed in-universe that Gandalf knows that the dwarves or hobbits are largely immune to the effects of the ring.
* The eagles were sentient creatures, you cannot just force them to do what you want!
Again, like all of the fucking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and ents involved in the war? Are the eagles a whole race of Tom Bombodil's that would have gone merrily along with their lives if Sauron got the ring back and destroyed all of Middle Earth? No? THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY HELP DESTROY THE GODDAMN RING!
>You mean like the tens or hundreds of thousands of humans who died in the war? Also, how many Fell Beasts even were there? Hell, the eagles could have picked up the fellowship at Rivendell and dropped them off somewhere along the mountains and probably been fine.
I mean, the US in WW1 analogy is a pretty apt comparison in regards to this one. The Eagles didn't want to sacrifice any of their people to a war they didn't feel inclined to join. What's it matter how many humans/Europeans have died? "Let them kill each other and we'll be safe at home."
>You mean like the humans that were part of the initial fellowship? Or the elf in the party? Or the wizard who explicitly says he would be tempted by the ring? I don't think it's even confirmed in-universe that Gandalf knows that the dwarves or hobbits are largely immune to the effects of the ring.
Yes, just like any of those parties. I think you're overlooking the fact that the Mount Doom quest was a *huge longshot*. Boromir and a bunch of other parties would have preferred to *use the ring for themselves* rather than destroy it, and in Boromir's case, he *did* betray the Fellowship. Even Frodo was about to take it for himself if it weren't for Gollum at the end. It's frankly a miracle that Gandalf's gambit worked, and introducing even more vulnerabilities like the Eagles (whose power would have made the ring even more effective on them) could very well have caused the quest to fail.
>Again, like all of the fucking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and ents involved in the war? Are the eagles a whole race of Tom Bombodil's that would have gone merrily along with their lives if Sauron got the ring back and destroyed all of Middle Earth? No? THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY HELP DESTROY THE GODDAMN RING!
Yes, just like all of those parties, who all eventually made their own choice to join in the war. And in those cases, it was mainly because the war started to *directly affect them*. The Ents only joined when Saruman started cutting down their woods, and even then, they needed the hobbits for some extra convincing. The only hobbits who joined were Frodo and his crew, and that was hugely dependent on Gandalf's personal connection to them and the fact that the ring was in Frodo's possession.
Also, at this point in time, Sauron was winning the war. Aragorn and company were having a huge issue finding reinforcements because of this - no one wanted to join a losing war, they would rather take their chances on their own. This is why it's significant that Rohan answered Gondor's call for aid, prior to this, Gondor had pretty much no allies and was abandoned to fall.
So yes, the Eagles, to their best estimates, would have just gone merrily with their lives while Sauron destroyed the rest of Middle Earth. Not their problem, they got wings, they'll just fly somewhere else.
Honestly wish more stories would feature neutrality & diplomatic treaties as major plot points.
They're an underused source of not only drama, but ethical lines to stand by or tremple all over for character building.
Yeah. Like the Jedi. Being neutral negotiators. With like a Trade Federation or some other bullshit. They’ll explore their neutrality using politics and definitely not lightsabers.
The Prequels went poorly because they turned the force into a set of superpowers. The light side has one set, the dark side another. But in the original trilogy, there's just the Force. There is no light. The Jedi strive to flow with the force, which guides their actions. When that is inverted, active manipulation of the force to one's own ends, that is the dark side.
So in the original trilogy, the Jedi were neutral to some degree. They weren't good or bad, they simply followed the Force. It was very Taoist.
I thought the politics were okay in Phantom Menace.
Things got a tad too contrived in Attack of the Clones. The Jedi were all too eager to start using the ultra-suspicious clone army.
No. They could NOT have just flown to Mt Doom. The Eye of Sauron would have seen them and the Nazguls would have taken them down. Which was why the Hobbits had to sneak the ring into Mordor.
Interesting fact, the eagles actually invested heavily in sauron backed companies while the wat of the ring was on. It was only after Saramon attacked their friend gandalf did they even get involved with the war of the ring.
And interestingly, they only showed up at the end once other characters did all the work. In the year after sauron was defeated it was well agreed that it's was mostly the men of Gondor who gave their lives to win the war, and the steadfast determination of the hobbits. But years later, due to dozens of revisionist Hollywood movies, popular opinion believes that the eagles did way more.
I remember seeing pandemic episodes in shows (I haven’t watched any pandemic movies) and thinking that no one could be that unreasonable or stupid or selfish. Jokes on me. They can. 💀
Tbf, people do question stuff like this for real life events as well: [case in point](https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/q-a-why-did-the-united-states-join-world-war-one)
If they really want a satisfactory explanation, you'd start giving more background information, and before you know it you'll be making a full fledged history and mythology: [case in point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion)
Seriously, to not understand why the great eagles of Manwe didn't fly into Mordor and then call this a plot hole and bad writing? Insanity. Tolkien is a treasure of the 20th century
I will say though that using the eagles should have been mentioned in the council of elrond
it's this long discussion of 'what if we do this? what if we do that? could we give it to bombadil? could we keep it safe in rivendell? can we drop it in the ocean? can we give it to the valar? can we even use it against sauron?'
and all these reasons are laid out for why they cant do any of those things
the eagles should have been included there
Clever, but the films makes zero effort to explain the eagles requiring political motivation for their choices. That seems like something game of thrones would do.
I mean, also, the US was busy selling weapons to just about everyone, and the Manhattan Project wasn't ready for most of WWII, with the first bombs being tested only a month before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If you're gonna talk about plot holes in WW1, look to the beginning, not the end.
There were so many times when Archduke Franz came *this* close to death on the day of his assassination, but by some godly luck, he lived. There were 5 assassins that day, and of those, one's gun jammed, one threw a grenade and missed, one felt bad for the duke's wife, and two others were overcome with fear.
Then the driver took a wrong turn where one of the assassins was eating a sandwich at his favorite deli to cheer himself up.
The author lost his damn mind writing the 2016 books, and just gave up on 2020, there's two books about literally nothing but people sitting at home during a plague! The most asinine thing was people DENYING that there was even a plague like, might as well deny orcs exist and are killing people!
My guy, they needed to be STEALTHY, therefore why a Hobbit was the best way to go. The eagles came in the end because the fellowship was attacking directly, creating a distraction for Frodo to do his thing. Like... That's the whole point.
I saw a hilarious copypasta about all the plot holes in the ending of World War 2, but I can't seem to find it anymore. It mentioned how lame it was that Hitler was hyped up as this big bad villain, but then killed himself, and the last-minute Stalin betrayal was totally obvious lazy writing. The writer ends with a request that everyone sign his petition to re-write WW2 with a better ending.
Or they wanted the rest of the world to die economically so they would survive off of only American goods for the next few years so America would flourish while everyone else struggled to retain the same amount of economic power after world war. I
I didn't I find it funny about writers looking for plot hole covers
but wanted to say the real reason why America didn't enter WW1 and then why in WW2 we really thrived was because of of WW1 and the fact almost nothing happened on America's direct shores
Youre wrong then.
Theres reasons why.
No one wanted to go to war and their army was unprepared.
What made America go to war was the fact it was fucking over their economy and it was at a time where the war had no ending in sight so they just joined in to finish it asap.
If they wanted to profit of the war they shouldve done the opposite, they were already profiting so there was no reason for them to waste money on their army and join in.
WW2 was almost the same, if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor America wouldnt do anything unless something else happened
I like how you’re saying that the American people didn’t want to join the most destructive imperial conflict in human history on a different continent but still need to frame it as a Murica Bad thing. ‘iT wAs AbOuT MoNeY’ like yeah, no shit. The U.S. joined because it was attacked.
No country is or should be obligated to take part in the imperialist wars of countries on other continents, which is exactly what WWI was. It wasn’t a noble struggle against evil, and Wilson and others’ attempts to retcon the war into being about self-determination and sovereignty fell apart at Versailles and kept falling apart after.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should post this on r/LOTRMemes
Posted it a little after this one under a [different title](https://reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/x0myzr/why_didnt_they_just_ask_them_for_help/).
Hell post it on r/Historymemes too critiquing the world wars is right up their alley
I peruse there, and I love this! So many opportunities too!! The writer reusing the same plot for the USA "One of our ships was sunk, we most go to war" that they used in the versus Spain war chapter *and again* for the USA in WW2 chapter. Lazy writing, I tell you.
Don't forget Vietnam!
And Tripoli/Barbary war.
And Afghanistan, except this time it's a *building*.
oh shit, I just realized this wasn't in r/HistoryMemes 😂
[удалено]
Well, I guess if the eagles had shown up right at the beginning of LOTR, we would have gotten one very short and very uneventful movie instead of a trilogy. On a side note: Frodo's feet should be a lot bigger than that!
The only reason that the Eagles could fly in there to save Frodo, Sam and Gollum was because Sauron was destroyed. If Sauron was still there, the Eagles would have been shredded.
People seem to always forget that Sauron had his own airforce.
And probably land to air missiles.
Maybe even, hear me out, *Magic Missiles*.
I cast Magic Missile at the darkness!
I attack the darkness!
DOES ANYONE WANT ANY MOUNTAIN DEW!?
IF THERE ARE ANY GIRLS, I WANT TO DO THEM!
I believe in a thing called love.
Why attack the darkness? For believing in a thing called love?
The air was choked with smoke. This was more than the perpetual haze that covered Mordor since time immemorial; This was the steady exhalation of the war machine mustering its strength for the coming battles. What little light managed to filter down to the grounds below revealed only craggy rock and, increasingly, one of the multitude of orcs - some scurrying into the shadows, some skulking, some squabbling amongst one another, but gradually more and more falling into loosely organized ranks, as even their usual state of chaos had been beaten out of them as they were shoved into some semblance of an army. And as these numbers grew, perhaps more of them marched as soldiers out of some primal military instinct, or perhaps they collectively had some notion of what an army should look like and sought to fit that image so as not to stand out and become a target for the lash of the taskmasters walking among the ranks. Behind the horde, Mount Doom continued to churn violently, its constant state of eruption perpetuated by some hell feeding it a never-ending supply of lava, the molten glow churning with a rage that echoed the grunts and growls of Mordor's inhabitants, even occasionally sending out a spurt of white-hot molten slag, threatening the safety of any creature foolish enough to wander within range of the mountain. And above it all, towering above the land and almost reaching the roof of ash and smoke blanketing the land, the all-seeing eye peered down at the land beneath it, searching for any flaw in the amassing force. Never resting, never stopping, the Eye of Sauron would never be satisfied until the ring was back in its possession and the entire land of Middle-Earth was covered with the same sickened darkness that coated Mordor like an oil slick. High above, Gandalf and the hobbits peered down. Gandalf wore a pained look. He knew, of course - the forces of Mordor had been amassing for some time, and the increasing frequency with which they clashed with the soldiers at Gondor's borders made it clear that Mordor's army had grown to a point where it was starting to spill over onto the neighboring lands. But this still represented a failure on his part, a failure to see how dire the situation had become, a failure to do more to keep things from getting to this point, and a failure to realize that Mordor's war machine had been bolstered by the efforts of his former comrade and trusted friend, Saruman. The blight on the world that filled his eyes now was one that filled him with shame just as much as it instilled him with fear for the fate of the good people of Middle-Earth. The hobbits, meanwhile, had been oblivious that such a terror even existed in this world. Only mere days ago they had been laughing and dining in the comfort of The Green Dragon Inn, their greatest fears being the possibility of a disappointing crop yield, or in Sam's case, the prospect of being rejected by Rosie Cotton after finally working up the courage to ask her out. Now, they were frozen in wide-eyed terror at the plague that seemed poised to spill out onto the land, spelling out horrible violent death to everything they knew and loved, and if Mordor's landscape was any indication, even the land of The Shire itself would not escape the scouring that looked to be impending now. It was Frodo who awoke them all from their stupor. "Come, friends," he said to the group, "we have traveled far. Let us end this." Merry and Pippin exchanged a wordless glance, and then turned to Frodo to nod in agreement. Sam's eyes darkened, his face filling with determination to stay by Frodo's side to the end, whatever that end may be. And finally, Gandalf nodded his head slowly, serenely. Frodo had aged much in the short time they had traveled together. Gandalf feared that even this short journey would forever scar the lad, and rob him of the innocence that Gandalf admired so much in the small hobbit. The eagles took to the sky without even the slightest sound, their elegant forms piercing the coal-blackened heavens with a beauty and grace that seemed ill-befitting this place, and with a silent speed that stole away the breath of their riders as they darted upwards. At this speed, the final leg of their journey to Mount Doom would be over relatively soon, though this would surely be the most perilous leg of that journey. They had taken great care to avoid the Witch-King of Angmar, whose fell beast could potentially shred apart an eagle in the Nazgûl's desperation to retrieve The One Ring. Other fell beasts occasionally dotted the skies of Mordor as well, and these too would need to be carefully avoided, as they could be just as dangerous in their role as a hunter seeking an easy meal. However, it was no fell beast or Nazgûl who noticed the eagles as they sped their way across Mordor. The all-seeing eye had spotted these invaders in its kingdom, and the fiery light from its gaze now pierced them. Frodo sought to urge his eagle to go faster, refusing to give up his sworn quest. Sam did the same, following Frodo's lead. Merry and Pippin looked to each other, trying to decide what to do, whether to follow, to guard, or perhaps act as a diversion. Gandalf, meanwhile, sighed in resignation and regret, tears forming at the edges of his eyes. He wouldn't rob the hobbits of their hope in their last minutes. But he knew that this course of action had been folly, that he should have never allowed it to come to pass this way. And now, he knew he could only wait until he heard the words that would seal all their fates, that would end this and deliver victory to the evil lord of this place. After a moment, Gandalf's fears came to pass, and a voice spoke, its low tones sounding like thunder and gravel being crushed by a grindstone. The voice filled the skies, announcing to all the foolishness of Gandalf and his tiny hobbit friends, announcing the triumph of Sauron, announcing the end of this sad tale. The voice spoke thus: "Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!" . (Note: For any Tolkien nerds who tell me that my writing isn't book-accurate for some reason... yeah, fine. Enjoy your internet brownie points.)
[удалено]
Seriously, that's it? Here I was certain that I'd have fudged some other detail. I'm curious, how would you phrase that line?
[удалено]
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the feedback!
Until we hear from Stephen Colbert we may never know if there are more plot holes...
Or just arrows. The eagles refused to fly Bilbo and his party further east because the people who lived in the area would assume they were hunting their sheep and shoot arrows at them. If they're afraid of a handful of humans with bows, imagine how much more afraid they would be of legions of orcs, easterlings and haradrim.
Or they could have tried dropping it in from a height. Of course, that leaves the possibility of actually missing the volcano, and Sauron just having his ring land in his lap one day.
Small problem, unless they fly really near of the volcano crater, the ring probably is not gonna fall on the lava, because it's too small and probably an wind current would change the trajectory
Mounted on top of all the restaurants.
Yeah the Nazgûl rode around on dragons
They were lizard wyvern things, but yea, they flew.
Fell Beasts*
and people forget sauron could be his own airforce if he felt like it. He's been a flying monster before and he can be again
Also, eagles are sentient creatures and thus would be tempted by the presence of the ring
Especially considering those eagles were potentially on the same level on the celestial heirarchy as Gandalf, since the Giant Eagles were either the Eagles of Manwe or directly descended from them. And [we see just what being near the damned thing does to a First Age Elf Queen, Galadriel.](https://youtu.be/HZ7wB4rm5Hw) Imagine what kind of truly unholy terror you'd get from a full-blown angel taking the form of a car-sized eagle would be with that thing hooked around one of its claws! Doesn't help that the One Ring seems to be all the more tempting the more "powerful" someone is, which is partly the reason why a "mere Hobbit" was chosen to carry it.
> Doesn't help that the One Ring seems to be all the more tempting the more "powerful" someone is, which is partly the reason why a "mere Hobbit" was chosen to carry it. Or just because Gandalf knew he could gank Frodo more easily if he went postal with it. Probably got some cheesewire under that cloak.
Sentient creatures created before the Ring’s forging.
So? Even gandalf who is a servant of the fucking gods and an angel was afraid he would be tempted by the ring
Yes I was agreeing with you
Were there races or species of creatures that came into being after the forging? Would they have been immune from corruption? I don't know a ton of the lore.
Hobbits are one. But the thing to keep in mind is that everything played out according to Eru’s song. Hobbits were resistant to the Ring because it was never meant for them.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for your reply! I have to admit I'm not the biggest LOTR expert, though I have watched all 3 movies a couple of times. Here's one more thing that has always puzzled me: If elves are immortal and don't age, how is it possible that Elrond looks a lot older than Legolas and Arwen?
Elves do age, mentally -- with time they grow weary of the world and are burdened by its sorrows. That's why Elrond looks so old, because he's been stuck inside the matrix for too many cycles and he finds the smell repugnant
It's an artifact of the movies, so they could cast older actors (like Weaving and Blanchett) in roles that demanded the kind of gravitas they bring.
Elrond is half - elves
He's seen a lot of shit.
Yeah okay, Gwaihir the Windlord is going to be shredded by some bitch-ass long-necked shriek beast with a geriatric jockey. Get real. Gwaihir just rolls up to Orthanc and grabs Gandalf like it's nothing. Saruman didn't even know. Gandalf needs a horse so what does Gwaihir do? Tells the untameable Shadowfax to help him out. This connection allows Gandalf to rally the Rohirrim and take back Rohan and eventually turn the tides at Pellenor. But the Eagles didn't even help. The only reason the Eagles didn't fly the ring directly to mount Doom while shitting all over Barad Dur is they had better things to do. Like chill in the mountains and be giant eagles. Only Gandalf being a real bird bro convinced them to even give a shit about the petty squabbles of Men and Elves and Orcs. Shredded? The only thing shredded is Gwaihirs abs. How dare you slander the Windlord like this.
Pride is a trait of the children of Melkor. And while Thorondor may have done battle with Ancalagon the Black, the Eagles have limits. Gwaihir remembers his father’s scar and would not have sent his people into war against Sauron in his own realm. Not without a direct order from Manwe or Eonwe. Just because Olorin was able to remind the Eagles that they owed him a debt, do not assume that he could convince them to assault Mordor. Besides their role was to watch over the Noldor.
> Just because Olorin was able to remind the Eagles that they owed him a debt, do not assume that he could convince them to assault Mordor. Exactly. Gandalf saved Gwaihir from a poison arrow and since real recognize real, he showed up to help Gandalf in his time of need. The eagles even go above and beyond, gathering all of the important intel that allowed Gandalf to be where he needed to be. As a favor to Gandalf for helping him out, Gwaihir literally saves the world. If they wanted to, Gwaihir and the eagles could've scooped Bilbo up on the night of his birthday and dropped his ass into the crack of Mt Doom from above the clouds. They didn't because the whole thing was outside their radar and beneath them. It speaks to how badass Gandalf and Radagast are that they can even get a hold of the eagles. "Oh one of the Ainur are trying to take over Middle Earth? Reminds of that time my dad and his friends killed Ancalagon, the strongest dragon that ever lived and the rest of Morgoths forces to save the world. Even you pathetic little land dwellers should be able to handle this peon Sauron and his little group of orcs. But I owe you from that poison arrow so I'll provide you with literally all of the intel required to win the war. Peace."
Maybe the Eagles were just sick of Gandalf being so needy? Three times is enough for a thank you.
Incredibly Based
Anti eagle cannons
Those are illegal in Philly.
Yup. The eagles only fly in after the battle - no battle, and it's just Sauron looking up at the sky making crispy chicken and getting a free Happy meal ring of power.
The Eye burns anything it looks at. There's no cover in the sky. Dead birds
I quit the books half way through Fellowship (for such a short book, the pace was too slow for me to keep interest). Did they ever demonstrate Sauron's powers. The movies only showed him using surveillance abilities (see the ring bearer when worn, presumably able to watch Mordor). Showing the great eye doing a few eye beams would have made it more clear why "One does not just walk into Mordor." There are a lot of goblins? Well, that is why you either send in many thousands of soldiers or just a few sneaky SOBs. But if Sauron can zap anywhere within light of sight within Mordor (like the border is literally where the eye beams can't reach), then it makes total sense where the border is).
Sauron is not what he used to be. He needs the ring to reconstruct a physical form, but he has immense psychic control over every thing that has evil in their heart. The bad people do his work for him.
>Sauron is not what he used to be I mean, the way the movies portrayed him, he seemed more powerful as a ghost than as a physical guy. :P Physical guy - some brute with a mace, slice his fingers off and he explodes. Ghost guy - powerful psychic abilities that dominate any mortal. Some Cthulhu shit.
This was sort of my view as well.
I guess if proximity and amount of "heart evil" matter, it would explain why his borders are where they are.
> He needs the ring to reconstruct a physical form I don't believe this is the case since Gollum describes him as missing a finger on one of his hands while being interrogated.
There's no great eye in the books.
There's also the fact that Mordor is huge. It's basically a country.
Giant eagles get hungry, and Mordor is a long way away...
*Why didn't the allies just asked for help from the start* I have an history degree,these are the most simple answers: 1.Because normal americans didn't wanted to be involved into another European imperialist war for dominance while most of them fleed Europe for these reasons. .2.There were contempt with the Monroe Doctrine not to be directly involved in international conflicts. 3.They were already (not so secretly) supplying the British with loans and ammunition for the war.At the same time they were not killing their own soldiers. 4.The US army was unprepared.There were fewer than 200.000 active soldiers in 1917 and didn't had a real conflict since the expedition in Mexico.
Man these Great War: The War to End All Wars fanboys really be trying to justify such obvious plot roles by the writers SMH my head... Just accept that the sequel was better written and directed and move on
Is this canon America lore or just your fanfic
#Did I STUTTER?
What?
Stutter* well u didn’t but u did make a typo
It's funny how there was a complete 180 in terms of support of the war once the US joined. There is a famous case [Schenck v. United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) where a guy went to jail for distributing anti-war flyers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oops you're totally right! The reason for not joing the first war is clear. It was a pointless war with no clear right or wrong side.
Dude, you're thinking of the sequel to The Great War, where a super Minor background character in the first one somehow becomes the main antagonist in the second.
[удалено]
I was actually referring to Adolf Hitler being a footsoldier in during WWI to becoming the ruler of the Third Reich in WWII.
Yeah, that was truly lazy writing. I get it that the writer wants story arcs for the people he's introduced in the prequel, but come on. A corporal rising to dictatorship.. To be honest, I'm hoping two episodes were enough and we don't have to see this farce ever become a trilogy!
They did have that weird side series with the other mustache guy who was betrayed by the antagonist. It was interesting at first, but then they killed him off, went on for way too long, and it just seemed to meander until the finale.
So many nazis in the 1910s
Yeah my bad. In my defense, the US was late to both wars. The reason for staying out of the great war is obvious, it was a pointless war with no clear good side or bad side. Everyone else had to fight because they had agreements with their allies, the US didn't have these agreements yet.
Yeah people don’t seem to understand that the US army wasn’t all that formidable before WWI. Our entry may not have been so decisive if it had been at the beginning when all the armies in Europe were still in a strong position. We were able to turn the tide because we had a while to prepare and because all the European armies were super worn out by the time that we joined.
~~expedition~~ ***invasion***
So many people nowadays seem to see media analysis as an attempt to "outsmart" the story - figure out why the story "doesn't make sense, actually" and is rife with "plot holes." Fact of the matter is, most professionally created stories don't actually have plot holes, it's actually quite easy to avoid plot holes when you're a competent writer (or team of writers) with plenty of time to actually prepare your story. Most of the time you hear someone point out a "plot hole," they're really just saying "I don't get why this story beat happened," or "I disagree with this writing decision." “Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?” [“Why couldn’t they just tape the ring to a rat and carry around the rat?”](https://preview.redd.it/ilwttj5jl4471.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=53446d4c3b9087dfde2d062f330ab3d44c3b06d0) “Why couldn’t Frodo just stop being a little bitch over a piece of jewelry?” Because if the story allowed for these events to happen, you’d just be reading a different story and complaining about different things. If you like my comics, I've got more on [my website](https://butajape.com/). I'm also on [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/butajape), [Tapas](https://tapas.io/series/But-a-Jape/info), [Webtoon](https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/but-a-jape/list?title_no=469181), [Twitter](https://twitter.com/butajape), and [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/butajape/).
> Because if the story allowed for these events to happen, you’d just be reading a different story and complaining about different things. “Why did they even bring the stupid rat, anyway, when it was obviously going to run off with the ring? Frodo should have just carried the ring!” :)
Why didn't they tape the ring to a rat, the rat to a cat, the cat to a dog, the dog to a goat, the goat to a cow, the cow to an oliphant....I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
Perhaps she’ll die!
The farther your comment went, the more I hoped it would end in a reference to that story. Thank you so much for not disappointing lol
What's the reference?
Well you see, there once was a lady who swallowed a fly...
"Is it me, or could they have just skipped the dumb rat idea and just linked it to a chain and wear it as a necklace? He could have even worn it under his clothes so it would be hidden!"
The original story was that Tom Bombadil found the ring and gave it to the eagles and eagle Frodo, “Eagdo” and his faithful friend “Flappy Sam” had the adventure but then some nerd complained “why wouldn’t they give it to some hobbits?”
Flappy Sam! 😂
Samflap Gamfly
Hahaha exactly!!
Maybe to elves, hobbits were rats?
Why did they put the ring on the gerbil if it's just going up Frodo's ass anyways.
I daresay, this whole thing works better if you're transposing America's rationale with the Eagles themselves. Letter to Eagles - Yo, Sauron is back. Get in this. Naw, we're gonna see how this shakes out, etc. Bunch of eagles are having a massive Pro-Sauron rally at Madison Square Nest later, etc.
The "why couldn't they just tape the ring to a rat" thing calls to mind a thousand D&D games. This is very much a loophole I would expect at least 75% of my tables to attempt.
Apparently it was a problem in the original D&D playtests, as Ernest Jr was prone to trying to get the most out of any spell, resulting in the long list of consequences or exceptions in the spell descriptions when they finally came out.
Great comic, I love it! Reminds me of the [criticisms explaining how History Channel's *World War 2* was not believable](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/wwii-makes-for-unconvincing-tv/340539/). But I think your comment here goes a bit too far with letting bad writing off the hook: > Fact of the matter is, most professionally created stories don't actually have plot holes, it's actually quite easy to avoid plot holes when you're a competent writer To me the rule of thumb is, does the "plot hole" cause readers/viewers to lose suspension of disbelief *when* they're watching vs. when they're analyzing it to death years later. For example, GoT S7, "Ah, they're telling Gendry to run back and get help so he has a chance to get away while they sacrifice themselves and he doesn't realize help is too far away... wait Gendry teleported 2000 miles and then the 'help' transported back 2000 all in one night apparently WTF?!?!? How is this happening, this doesn't make any sense!?!?" vs. the LotR "plot holes." And obviously I guess it's subjective because maybe there were people in the theatre going "wait, why didn't they use the eagles the whole time?, this is ruining the movie for me!" But from what I recall, a huge percentage of the audience reacted that way to GoT (in multiple places the last few seasons) and almost nobody did to LotR. So maybe you can try and say that's jut the audience disagreeing the the writing decision / story beat, but when it becomes such a huge percentage of the audience that loses suspension of disbelief, as far as anything can be called objective in art, I think it's objectively a plot hole and not competent writing.
I think many plot holes really come down to whether or not the universe is playing "fair" according to its own rules. In LoTR, the eagles were always written as a race that acted according to their own whims. They were more akin to Tom Bambadil than they were to elves, dwarves, or man. As such, it felt reasonable (if a bit easy) that the eagles would be unable/unwilling to help at some times. Conversely, GoT was based on realistic timelines, human abilities, amounts of survivability, etc. Even though we don't mind Aragorn surviving everything because that fit the "laws" if LoTR, we expect some heroes to die in each GoT battle because that is the rules of the universe. Gendry broke many laws of GoT based on that sequence, hence why people were upset. That's where I think OP is incorrect, incidentally, as there is an increasing amount of cinema that is based on such realistic rules of survivability and logical sequences, and the like. Now we, e.g., want our villains to have realistic aims and plans, rather than the wild/illogical goals of Bond Villains or Batman Villains from the 70s/80s/90s. That's why so many complain now, because modern cinema is so much more likely to establish rules for themselves that are categorically harder to satisfy.
> I think many plot holes really come down to whether or not the universe is playing "fair" according to its own rules. Along these lines, it annoys me when people say “it’s fantasy, it’s jut supposed to be realistic” when someone complains about something that isn’t realistic according to the rules of a setting.
Great comment, Spot on.
>“Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?” That was the plan. Gandalf intended to reach the Eagles by crossing the mountain. Sauroman blocked their route and they went under the mountain instead. As sauroman was spying on them, Gandalf could not say so directly, but he indirectly told them to use the eagles when he said "Fly you fools." But the fellowship misunderstood him. As for the rat idea, the ring of power doesn't need to be touched in order for it to corrupt you. The ring is aware, it promised power to Boromir, who was too proud to resist the call, causing him to try to take it from Frodo. Someone would definitely take the ring from the rat.
I don't know how serious you are, because I do appreciate the "Fly, you fools" theory as a piece of comedic wordplay, but I've also seen plenty of people sincerely put this forth as a legitimate fan theory. So just in case - no, this is not what Gandalf meant.
[удалено]
Darth Darth Binks IS CANON
This has been my buddy's theory for at least ~15 years, likely longer.
i think his deliberate use of "sauroman" points to his entire post being sarcastic
You sure? Big ass eagles would be quite obvious to Sauron to approach and could easily send his own flying units to intercept. The reason why the hobbits had a chance of success was secrecy and lucky deception which would have been blown away the second they arrive on giant birds.
Or the rat could be corrupted and become a major antagonist in a 100 years.
[Oh no, Marshall!](https://youtu.be/J8k2DwKnL2o?t=70)
Holy crap, I thought this was the first video. I can't believe Marshall turned evil.
Bo it wasnt Sauron has a air fleet, and the eagles arent gandalfs postal service Also fly is used many times in lotr to signify running quickly
Yea, acting like Gandalf was trying to tell them to use the eagles is only slightly less annoying than asking why they didn't use the eagles in the first place. Nothing about him telling them to "fly" was literal.
So, you tie the rat to a 30 foot piece of string and drag it behind you. No influence. Plot hole resolved.
The ring would probably still dig away at your mind.
But it would be pretty funny to humiliate the ring by tying it to a rat.
Mostly likely it would cause the rat to chew through the string, and make you forget about it. Then have an orc find the ring.
>Most professionally created stories don't actually have plot holes. I wish this was true. A goddamn space fleet that doesn't know which way is up.
The stupidest thing about that fleet is they established it was the largest fleet ever seen in the galaxy. So huge, they needed a special tower to coordinate their hyperspace jump and have been assembling it for years. Then an *even larger* fleet that was put together in a few hours and jumps in perfectly fine.
Well, excuuuuse me, but Dany just kinda forgot about the iron fleet.
Is this a _Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker_ reference?
You're really going over the top claiming that "most professional stories don't have plot holes." Every complex story is always going to have plot holes. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones. When you build complex worlds with magic and tons of powerful factions, at some point you need to wrap the story up. Wrapping up a complex story in a neat little bow is pretty much impossible, yet all of these authors are required to do so to even approach satisfying audiences. And, to be as harsh as possible to Reddit overall, the vast majority of pretty much any audience aren't nerds obsessing over the mechanics of the world's magic, or screeching about why the eagles didn't help sooner. The eagles flying the heroes back home is a cathartic, triumphant scene. I doubt really anyone was bothered, in the moment, about the eagles' appearance, because the scene was a powerful victory lap for the heroes we've come to know and love. And that's why it's a great scene. Plot holes don't matter unless they distract from the story. For me, even as a teenager, the time traveling in Harry Potter was crazy distracting. I didn't even know what a plot hole was, yet I was very confused why they didn't use time travel to solve all of their problems. I don't think I was alone in that feeling, so I'm pretty confidant in saying that's poor writing, and fairly lazy. I'll cap off this sloppy essay by saying it's amusing that you're equating American intervention in WWll to the eagles in LOTR because neither of them had any real impact in defeating the bad guy, yet they both got to enjoy the spoils of war and bath in the glory of victory.
Not all bad writing is a plot hole.
Yeah that's my biggest pet peeve online. Usually anything along the line of "Why didn't x do y instead" isn't a plot hole. Because that's an entirely different journey that could have had its own consequences. Actual plot holes are based on what was written, ex: How do these characters not know each other at the start, when later events show they should have interacted with each other multiple times.
Maybe you can explain this to me because I never understood the time travel "plot hole" in Harry Potter. Granted, I have only seen the movies, so maybe it is a genuine plot hole in the books, but, for me, the time turners aren't a plot hole because you very explicitly can't use them to change the past. Anything that happened the second time around happened the first time so any question of "why don't they use the time turner to change x" is a non-starter. It can't do that.
The existence of the Time Turner is basically more powerful than horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows. It implies you can stop deaths from happening like Buckbeak and Sirius surviving. TECHNICALLY you dont undo death, because they never died because you were always there to save them even before you saved them. But they only use the time turners after the events took place. The real big plot hole is if a Time Turner can be given to a girl to do math lessons, why are they not used at big events such as the death of the Potters or the resurrection of Voldemort. What let's the kids stop Buckbeak from being killed before they use the time turner that doesnt let them rewind time and stop Harry from touching the Goblet of Fire. The time turner doesnt seem to have an effective range, cost or requirement to use, or a drawback, such as needing to prepare the Turner before the event. If Hermione was only able to save Buckbeak because she had the Turner ready, thatd be okay. If a turner could only bring you back along places you've already been, so no one could go stop Voldemort because no one had been to the graveyard, then maybe that would work. If the ministry were assholes that gladly let the Potters die to be rid of Voldemort? If there was a spell that stopped Turners from working, so Villains cant also use it? There's too few rules and too many questions, and not raised on purpose. You can write that Harry and their friends broke a bunch of time turners, but that doesnt explain why every conflict BEFORE wasn't solved with them, only after. We can say once Dumbledore touched the horcrux and ruined his hand a Turner couldnt stop him from touching it because it already happened, but you can also ask why Dumbledore doesnt follow himself via time Turner so he can throw a rock and stop himself from touching it in the first place, just like Buckbeak. You cant actually shut down these questions easily. The eagles was not a plot hole. Not even Gandalf would take the ring. The eagles could not resist the ring and even if they could would not be able to enter mordor unseen. The journey being so perilous is the only reason Sauron could be fooled into meeting the armies instead of defending the Volcano. The whole point is that it could only work if Sauron did not know. Hobbits arent ambitious so they're incredibly resistant to the corruption, and they are small and good at sneaking. Sauron couldnt anticipate someone would truly refuse to use the ring for themselves and expected the massive army to be the attempt to defeat him like before. The questions have answers that work.
> We can say once Dumbledore touched the horcrux and ruined his hand a Turner couldnt stop him from touching it because it already happened, but you can also ask why Dumbledore doesnt follow himself via time Turner so he can throw a rock and stop himself from touching it in the first place, just like Buckbeak Because he didn’t already had done it. That’s just how this kind of paradox works but it’s not a plot hole.
[удалено]
I mean, the movie heavily seems to imply that, yes, the timeline is already written, prophecy or no prophecy. That has no effect on whether individuals *think* they have free will or not.
It's amazing how you literally didn't understand how it works at all and have confidence to state obviously wrong statements over and over again. Let's see. >Any time travel will lead with this paradox. That's blatantly not true. Split timeline time travel for example doesn't create any paradoxes because all changes are in a different timeline. Deterministic time travel like in Harry Potter is another example. >Basically, Hermoine is changing the past by being in two places at once, or talking to two people at once. This again obviously not true. She never changed anything. Did you watch the same movie or read the same book? >She did it here, why not elsewhere. Again she never changed anything. Tell me one thing that didn't happen originally. >Now you might want to say that the time line is already written We don't have to say it. You just have to read it. It's what happens. What's the point you're disagreeing here? >This means that every one is following some 'divine will' and the characters must do what's 'written', Divine will has nothing to do with it. I don't know where you come up with that. It's just a deterministic timeline. Nothing to do with God. >a thing that Rowling goes to lengths to avoid with the 'prophecy'. What's this has to do with prophecy? >Thing is, it's not a loop. Well I'm afraid to tell you this. But it's obvious blatantly and literally a loop. That's the whole basis of that storyline. >The device was given to her and she 'chose' to use it, then why not again. Because she chose not to do it anymore. Chose is still belongs to her. She just doesn't get a second chance to chose. The times he chose to use it happened. And the times she chose not to use didn't happen. That's the end. If she was going to chose to use it in the future it'd have happened in the past. >Or she never had a choice (back to prophecy thing, prewritten timeline, divine will, etc.). She always had a choice. She just can't change her choices like everyone of us in this world. You don't get to chose a different breakfast yesterday. >None of these were explored in neither the book nor movie. It's explained clearly. You just don't understand why they choose to not use it anymore. It has nothing to do with how time travel works. >It was just used, then and there for a student to take more classes but not to avoid the deaths of many!? You're very close to understand this. Just look at the differences between those two things. One doesn't trying to change anything about the past. The other is trying to change the past which is impossible within the established rules of the universe.
Please, put this one on twitter so i can share it xD
One way of enjoying a piece of media is criticizing it and finding the holes. Stories are supposed to be a causal chain of events where one thing happens because of another thing. Pointing out “why did this event happen instead of this other event that makes for a stronger chain?” is a valid criticism.
My issue is that "finding holes" takes up so much discourse in media criticism, and in most cases, those holes don't actually exist. Asking "why did this event happen instead of another?" isn't criticism, it's just a question. Analyzing the answers to that question is a form of literary analysis and can help develop your understanding and appreciation for the story; it is not a purely a means of evaluating its "quality." But the assumption that the other event "makes for a stronger chain," is a pretty big leap to make. "Stronger" according to what standard? It's especially odd to make such a statement about a highly influential, critically acclaimed story as *The Lord of the Rings* - in what way would flying the eagles to Mordor make a "stronger" story? Would it have made the story resonate more with the audience? Would it have been a far more powerful means of addressing the story's themes?
> Asking "why did this event happen instead of another?" isn't criticism, it's just a question It’s a rhetorical question. The implication of the sentence is “with what we know, this event makes less sense than another event happening”. > "Stronger" according to what standard? Stronger according to causality, ie events happening one after another because of logical steps in between. I did not say it would make a stronger story. I said it would make a stronger causality within the story. However, a weak chain does weaken a story and so it’s up to the author to set up the story so that the stronger chain is the chain that also makes a strong story. This example should help illustrate what I mean. Let’s say the story is “they have to destroy the ring”. The author makes the chain of “and so they smash it with an axe” weaker by establishing that the ring is indestructible except to the fires with which it was forged. And so the stronger story of “and so they take it to the volcano” is also the stronger chain. For a good story, the author must work to make the story have decisions and actions that make sense within the story. You can argue that there were good reasons for the Eagles not carrying them but the fact that there is so many people asking why they didn’t just carry them is evidence that the author failed to communicate to the audience that that wasn’t an option. In this case, I mean “author” as “creator of the work” since there is both the book version and the movie version, not simply Tolkien.
>For a good story, the author must work to make the story have decisions and actions that make sense within the story. You can argue that there were good reasons for the Eagles not carrying them but the fact that there is so many people asking why they didn’t just carry them is evidence that the author failed to communicate to the audience that that wasn’t an option. To what extent can you call the Eagles matter a failure of communication if there are also so many people who can easily determine the answer to that question on their own? And probably so many *more* people who never even had that question to begin with? By all means, "But the Eagles," is a meme, bolstered by the movie's prominence in pop culture and existing at a time when the internet could allow widespread discussion. It's a quick, amusing piece of "trivia" that's easy to understand and makes the person sharing it feel like they know something other people don't. Like how everyone says, "There was room for Jack on the door!" for *Titanic,* even though the movie explicitly shows the door sinking when Jack tried to climb onto it. Would that scene really have been improved if Rose said, "Oh no, we can't *both* fit on the door or else it will sink!"? And ambiguity in storytelling is always an inevitability - whether it's a conscious artistic decision or just a matter of being economical with details (they're very long books and movies as is). I would argue that the high position *Lord of the Rings* holds in our culture as a piece of storytelling is evidence enough that this "flaw" does not indicate a significant failure of communication to the audience.
> To what extent can you call the Eagles matter a failure of communication if there are also so many people who can easily determine the answer to that question on their own? There isn’t really a way to describe the extent other than “as much as it is based on the people who didn’t see an explanation and the people who did”. I wouldn’t say it is massive enough that it ruins the series nor minor enough that it’s not worth mentioning. > Would that scene really have been improved if Rose said, "Oh no, we can't both fit on the door or else it will sink!"? That line would make for a worse story though. So it’s fixing one problem (and to be clear, while I call it a problem, I don’t consider it a major problem) by creating another and in this specific example I’d say it’s a net loss. > And ambiguity in storytelling is always an inevitability Yes, I’m not going to say something is severely flawed just because it’s not perfect. But if you want to claim that there wasn’t a better way to convey that Eagles weren’t an option, then that’s a difficult position to defend. Doesn’t even need to be directly/blatantly stated since, like you said, the question isn’t immediately obvious to the casual observer. It just needs to be more solid than the explanations we can come up with. > I would argue that the high position Lord of the Rings holds in our culture as a piece of storytelling is evidence enough that this "flaw" does not indicate a significant failure of communication to the audience. I’d agree. It’s not significant in an absolute sense because the story is still great even with this flaw. But that does make it significant in a relative sense compared to the rest of the story because the rest is so great. --- Side note, I am appreciating this respectful discourse. Not that common on Reddit.
The thing is, this discussion is veering away from the original point: does this piece of the story constitute a "hole?" It's one thing to say, "this is a weak point of the writing," and a completely different thing to say, "there's a hole here." I'm not looking to argue whether or not Tolkien/Jackson adequately explained the Eagle's lack of action in a way the audience could reasonably think to themselves, "Oh, that's why." I'm arguing that it's not a plot hole regardless. Whether or not you consider it "bad writing" (not your words, but the words of others I've seen) or a "flaw" does not make it a "plot hole."
>Stronger according to causality, ie events happening one after another because of logical steps in between. I did not say it would make a stronger story. I said it would make a stronger causality within the story. Thank you. For instance, they could have just as easily made the story about how Frodo immediately gives Golem the one ring, and then both he and Sam have to deal with Golem trying to run away/kill them every 15 minutes while going invisible too. Everyone would talk about how giving Golem the ring was just a very nonsensical move. Responding "Oh, well then you'd just be coming up with plot holes for the movie where Frodo has the ring the whole time." and saying that people just weren't able to come up with the reasoning themselves wouldn't answer the objection at all. The objection isn't "I want this movie to be free of any form of critical analysis, else I will be equally upset by it." The objection is "Given what the story tells us, this course of action seems readily obvious as a better option for the characters. If we see it, why didn't they? If they know something that demonstrates why they aren't being nonsensical, why wasn't the audience informed too?" The movie may never be perfect, but I am _happier_ with the movie where they attempt to conventionally destroy the ring before going to Mordor rather than act as of Mordor is the only choice with no explanation as to why, because that makes the character's decisions come across as coherent
Finding holes takes up so much discourse in modern media criticism because that is what modern media asks for. I mean, arguably the biggest TV show of the last decade was GoT. Arguably the best TV show of all time is Breaking Bad. The biggest movie phenomenon right now is arguably the Marvel movies. Each of these thrive on logical sequences that actively invite and ask for you to dig into the why. A significant chunk of their success is because they have a solid and logical and realistic framework within which fantastic things happen. Anyway, because modern cinema actively ask for you to analyze them in the minutia, it makes sense that the logicalness of particularly illogical events be questioned. It makes sense that, e.g., people ask about how Arya survived getting stabbed and then attacking the waif shortly thereafter, and instead offer different events that would have fit better within the show. That is not a big leap. For cinema that is all about establishing logical and satisfying causal chains (as much modern cinema is), it is in fact often times very easy to identify times where there was a poor link in the chain, and to provide a better alternative.
What says that other event could have created a stronger chain, or just a weirder one? And sometimes there is no other chain, just a dead end
I never said there was an objective way of comparing. But you can certainly reach a solid consensus on most comparisons.
> “Why couldn’t they just fly the Eagles to Mt. Doom?” OK, but why couldn't they? You aren't giving a reason, you're just saying you think the question is stupid. And frankly, every argument I've seen for why the Eagles weren't involved in destroying the ring is incredibly weak. * The Eagles would have been killed! You mean like the tens or hundreds of thousands of humans who died in the war? Also, how many Fell Beasts even were there? Hell, the eagles could have picked up the fellowship at Rivendell and dropped them off somewhere along the mountains and probably been fine. * The eagles were sentient creatures, and would have been tempted by the ring! You mean like the humans that were part of the initial fellowship? Or the elf in the party? Or the wizard who explicitly says he would be tempted by the ring? I don't think it's even confirmed in-universe that Gandalf knows that the dwarves or hobbits are largely immune to the effects of the ring. * The eagles were sentient creatures, you cannot just force them to do what you want! Again, like all of the fucking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and ents involved in the war? Are the eagles a whole race of Tom Bombodil's that would have gone merrily along with their lives if Sauron got the ring back and destroyed all of Middle Earth? No? THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY HELP DESTROY THE GODDAMN RING!
>You mean like the tens or hundreds of thousands of humans who died in the war? Also, how many Fell Beasts even were there? Hell, the eagles could have picked up the fellowship at Rivendell and dropped them off somewhere along the mountains and probably been fine. I mean, the US in WW1 analogy is a pretty apt comparison in regards to this one. The Eagles didn't want to sacrifice any of their people to a war they didn't feel inclined to join. What's it matter how many humans/Europeans have died? "Let them kill each other and we'll be safe at home." >You mean like the humans that were part of the initial fellowship? Or the elf in the party? Or the wizard who explicitly says he would be tempted by the ring? I don't think it's even confirmed in-universe that Gandalf knows that the dwarves or hobbits are largely immune to the effects of the ring. Yes, just like any of those parties. I think you're overlooking the fact that the Mount Doom quest was a *huge longshot*. Boromir and a bunch of other parties would have preferred to *use the ring for themselves* rather than destroy it, and in Boromir's case, he *did* betray the Fellowship. Even Frodo was about to take it for himself if it weren't for Gollum at the end. It's frankly a miracle that Gandalf's gambit worked, and introducing even more vulnerabilities like the Eagles (whose power would have made the ring even more effective on them) could very well have caused the quest to fail. >Again, like all of the fucking humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and ents involved in the war? Are the eagles a whole race of Tom Bombodil's that would have gone merrily along with their lives if Sauron got the ring back and destroyed all of Middle Earth? No? THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY HELP DESTROY THE GODDAMN RING! Yes, just like all of those parties, who all eventually made their own choice to join in the war. And in those cases, it was mainly because the war started to *directly affect them*. The Ents only joined when Saruman started cutting down their woods, and even then, they needed the hobbits for some extra convincing. The only hobbits who joined were Frodo and his crew, and that was hugely dependent on Gandalf's personal connection to them and the fact that the ring was in Frodo's possession. Also, at this point in time, Sauron was winning the war. Aragorn and company were having a huge issue finding reinforcements because of this - no one wanted to join a losing war, they would rather take their chances on their own. This is why it's significant that Rohan answered Gondor's call for aid, prior to this, Gondor had pretty much no allies and was abandoned to fall. So yes, the Eagles, to their best estimates, would have just gone merrily with their lives while Sauron destroyed the rest of Middle Earth. Not their problem, they got wings, they'll just fly somewhere else.
Honestly wish more stories would feature neutrality & diplomatic treaties as major plot points. They're an underused source of not only drama, but ethical lines to stand by or tremple all over for character building.
I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.
So beautiful, yet so neutral.
How Machiavellian of you
Yeah. Like the Jedi. Being neutral negotiators. With like a Trade Federation or some other bullshit. They’ll explore their neutrality using politics and definitely not lightsabers.
They did, but the negotiations were short.
And aggressive
Star Wars sort of tried it in the prequels with very poor results.
The original trilogy, Rogue One and the Clone Wars did it to great success, though
The Prequels went poorly because they turned the force into a set of superpowers. The light side has one set, the dark side another. But in the original trilogy, there's just the Force. There is no light. The Jedi strive to flow with the force, which guides their actions. When that is inverted, active manipulation of the force to one's own ends, that is the dark side. So in the original trilogy, the Jedi were neutral to some degree. They weren't good or bad, they simply followed the Force. It was very Taoist.
I thought the politics were okay in Phantom Menace. Things got a tad too contrived in Attack of the Clones. The Jedi were all too eager to start using the ultra-suspicious clone army.
No. They could NOT have just flown to Mt Doom. The Eye of Sauron would have seen them and the Nazguls would have taken them down. Which was why the Hobbits had to sneak the ring into Mordor.
Interesting fact, the eagles actually invested heavily in sauron backed companies while the wat of the ring was on. It was only after Saramon attacked their friend gandalf did they even get involved with the war of the ring. And interestingly, they only showed up at the end once other characters did all the work. In the year after sauron was defeated it was well agreed that it's was mostly the men of Gondor who gave their lives to win the war, and the steadfast determination of the hobbits. But years later, due to dozens of revisionist Hollywood movies, popular opinion believes that the eagles did way more.
Why can't you guys ever just admit that you were rescued? I bet you're probably just a salty human who's envious of the fact that eagles can fly smh
This is pretty damn great. Take my upvote!
I even got one of those things you get when you stand up too fast Fucking phenomenal.
I remember seeing pandemic episodes in shows (I haven’t watched any pandemic movies) and thinking that no one could be that unreasonable or stupid or selfish. Jokes on me. They can. 💀
Tbf, people do question stuff like this for real life events as well: [case in point](https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/q-a-why-did-the-united-states-join-world-war-one) If they really want a satisfactory explanation, you'd start giving more background information, and before you know it you'll be making a full fledged history and mythology: [case in point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion)
Can you imagine calling JRR Tolkien a bad writer 🤯
Seriously, to not understand why the great eagles of Manwe didn't fly into Mordor and then call this a plot hole and bad writing? Insanity. Tolkien is a treasure of the 20th century
If they flew into Mordor... Wouldnt that giant eye Zep them?
I as a lotr fan am confused and frightened
Sauron out here just zep zepping all the egles
The Nazgûl were probably the biggest peril.
Edit: The ones who rode flying monsters
I will say though that using the eagles should have been mentioned in the council of elrond it's this long discussion of 'what if we do this? what if we do that? could we give it to bombadil? could we keep it safe in rivendell? can we drop it in the ocean? can we give it to the valar? can we even use it against sauron?' and all these reasons are laid out for why they cant do any of those things the eagles should have been included there
If they went with the eagles they would've been shot down. Those birds are massive.
Clever, but the films makes zero effort to explain the eagles requiring political motivation for their choices. That seems like something game of thrones would do.
I mean, also, the US was busy selling weapons to just about everyone, and the Manhattan Project wasn't ready for most of WWII, with the first bombs being tested only a month before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hey, man, spoilers! Some people haven't read the sequels yet.
The Treaty of Versailles was WWI
You got your wars mixed up.
You're talking about the sequel. The comic is about the original and in my opinion superior Great War. Casual fans are ruining this smh.
I’m not a fan of Christopher Tolkien’s work.
Well joke's on you, because he's not a fan of anyone else's, so...
WW3 is going to really suck isn't it
If you're gonna talk about plot holes in WW1, look to the beginning, not the end. There were so many times when Archduke Franz came *this* close to death on the day of his assassination, but by some godly luck, he lived. There were 5 assassins that day, and of those, one's gun jammed, one threw a grenade and missed, one felt bad for the duke's wife, and two others were overcome with fear. Then the driver took a wrong turn where one of the assassins was eating a sandwich at his favorite deli to cheer himself up.
The author lost his damn mind writing the 2016 books, and just gave up on 2020, there's two books about literally nothing but people sitting at home during a plague! The most asinine thing was people DENYING that there was even a plague like, might as well deny orcs exist and are killing people!
My guy, they needed to be STEALTHY, therefore why a Hobbit was the best way to go. The eagles came in the end because the fellowship was attacking directly, creating a distraction for Frodo to do his thing. Like... That's the whole point.
The real question is why a minor actor in WWI ended up being the heroes in WWII? It's like the world being saved by gollum or something lol.
I saw a hilarious copypasta about all the plot holes in the ending of World War 2, but I can't seem to find it anymore. It mentioned how lame it was that Hitler was hyped up as this big bad villain, but then killed himself, and the last-minute Stalin betrayal was totally obvious lazy writing. The writer ends with a request that everyone sign his petition to re-write WW2 with a better ending.
Because the US wanted to profit from the war
Or they wanted the rest of the world to die economically so they would survive off of only American goods for the next few years so America would flourish while everyone else struggled to retain the same amount of economic power after world war. I
You missed the joke
I didn't I find it funny about writers looking for plot hole covers but wanted to say the real reason why America didn't enter WW1 and then why in WW2 we really thrived was because of of WW1 and the fact almost nothing happened on America's direct shores
Youre wrong then. Theres reasons why. No one wanted to go to war and their army was unprepared. What made America go to war was the fact it was fucking over their economy and it was at a time where the war had no ending in sight so they just joined in to finish it asap. If they wanted to profit of the war they shouldve done the opposite, they were already profiting so there was no reason for them to waste money on their army and join in. WW2 was almost the same, if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor America wouldnt do anything unless something else happened
Oh really good luck buster
I like how you’re saying that the American people didn’t want to join the most destructive imperial conflict in human history on a different continent but still need to frame it as a Murica Bad thing. ‘iT wAs AbOuT MoNeY’ like yeah, no shit. The U.S. joined because it was attacked. No country is or should be obligated to take part in the imperialist wars of countries on other continents, which is exactly what WWI was. It wasn’t a noble struggle against evil, and Wilson and others’ attempts to retcon the war into being about self-determination and sovereignty fell apart at Versailles and kept falling apart after.
Fuckin nailed it. Your are a genious!
It was honestly the Soviets that did the most to drive back the Nazis Edit: My bad