QUOTE(Wilhelm @ Jan 16 2006, 11:56 AM)
No, it's not an action movie at all. It's a High Fantasy NOVEL that was turned into a High Fantasy movie. Plus, one could say The Ring is "druglike", but not an actually metaphor for drugs. For one thing, Sauron and Tom Bombadil's immunity to the effects of The Ring, it holds "no sway" over them, Tom Bombadil because he is like a wood spirit and Sauron because he created it. But the creators of a narcotic are not immune to it. As for some you spouting out some nonsense about it being "an action movie", please leave. I'm not saying I think The Ring is a drug, I'm saying that it could be interpretted as a drug. It's certainly a druglike object, but none of you seem to grasp that.
[right][snapback]407616[/snapback][/right]
The reason Sauron is not swayed by the ring, is because he basically is the ring. The ring is his personality poured into it.
Tom Bombidill is one step higher than the Maiar (Spelling), but below the Valar.
QUOTE(Sie_Sayoka @ Jan 16 2006, 02:12 PM)
yeah JRR tolkien wrote the lotr in highly metaphorical fasion. it diplicted the strife between good and evil(heaven and hell) but the one ring is what could change the good to evil. and who knows he could of metaphorically made the ring as a drug. it changes good people to evil but then again hes dead so we will never know :0
[right][snapback]407736[/snapback][/right]
I quote this from the Foreward to the Second Edition by J.R.R. Tolkien; Pages, xvi & xvii in LOTR:
QUOTE(J.R.R. Tolkien)
As for any inner meaning or message it has in the intention in the author none. It is niether Allegorical nor topical.
... (Random info about how he didn't write this in a metaphorical state towards WWI)
I cordially dislike allegory in all it's manifestations. And always have done so, since I have grown old and weary enough to detect it's presence. I much prefer history, true or feinged, with it's very applicability to the thought and experience of the readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory; But the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purpose domination of the author
I'm sorry to end your guys' discussion, but i'm touchy with LOTR.
Note: Andy Serkis does state in the bonus feature, that he plays the part of Golum as like an addict, but states this only to show that he did so, to play his part well.
Another note: At the time of this stories conception, drug addiction was not a big issue, and probibly would not have been on his mind in the first place