Catapult thing was Frodo's version, as it was mentioned. He might have made it up for more drama. As well as orc's ugliness. Orc's aren't that ugly, according to warcraft.
Fun fact: The Lord of the Rings (and the Silmarillion) were supposedly written by in-universe characters and the stories were based on the annals that Elves and others wrote. Tolkien was writing in a pseudo-historical style. So yeah, the stories are probably biased.
@@alyctus plus, there are actually two slightly different versions of how Bilbo got the ring from Golum. The version described in the hobbit is slightly different than the version Bilbo told frodo
@@hebercluff1665 True. In the Silm also, an Elven Prince (Caranthir) is described as the harshest by the chronicler because he said mean things to another prince. But throughout the story, Caranthir formed alliances with everyone and never mistreated or created an issue. While a Sinda king was a complete jerk to everyone, but there weren't any personal remarks about him. Turns out the chronicler was follower of a house that didn't have a good relationship with that of Caranthir's and that it was closer to the house which was related to that king.
I'm reading the books for the first time (just started Return of the King) and this had me in stitches. The orcs are actually kind of portrayed better in the books than in the movies. The draught they give the injured Merry seems to be more than simple booze, it is a darkness-tainted but still effective health potion. They are also less chaotic evil and more simply self-interested with their own clans and loyalties. They see the elves as we might see Celtic fairies: tricksters who can unleash a world of hurt on you if not careful. They definitely have beef with the dwarves but this isn't ever portrayed as orcs hating for no reason, it was a long feud. The Uruk-Hai have an intense pride in their work and were so loyal to Saruman that they'd kill their own to protect the prisoners of war and die to the last orc standing rather than surrender to the Rohirrim. They had their own sense of ethics beyond "for the evil".
I think there is a part in return of the king where some orcs are talking about what they are going to do after the war. They all talk about grabbing some food lads and settling the land
@@cavelord69 Which is perfectly logical. It is like when Rome fell, that was the plan of so many tribes as they moved into the power vacuum. When the war is over, they planned on colonizing the land and growing up their clans and families. Not evil, just self-interested.
Generally, most of "problems" Orcs have from worldbuilding standpoint that they are at the same time: 1. Presented as monsters you can just kill in mass without much moral dilemma 2. Humanized in many ways Neither trolls, dragons etc. are humanized in such way orcs are. "Evil" humans are not presented as monsters. Even Tolkien had issues with the depiction Orcs, rewriting their origin and nature many times and didn't manage to settle on the one. And no wonder that later depictions tend to see orcs more like "strong, tribal human-like beings" rather than monsters.
There was a group of soldiers in World War 2 that were brave, loyal, fierce, and very dedicated to their cause. Definitely had their "own sense of ethics". They were the Waffen-SS.
You forgot to say, that Mordor was just doing special military operation to denumenorize Gondor. It was all Gondor fault, because they were trying to destroy North Ithilien People Republic, which were trying just survive, because of the orc genocide there. And Gondor was just ruled by elven puppets, that convinced people of Gondor to hate the orcs. There were no attacks at civilians, Gondor and Rohan faked it and they did it themselves to blame Mordor. Of course the attack on Minas Tirith wouldnt be so devastating, if they just surrendered as the lord Sauron urged them to do so, because their nations are like brothers.
The dictatorship of Gondor was harboring the terrorists known only as the rangers of Ithilien who were causing general terror among the peaceful orc population of the united states of mordor. President Sauron also learned that the free peoples of Gondor were being oppressed by the vile dictator Denethor who was using a WMD called the "one ring", that is why President Sauron ordered a full invasion of Gondor to liberate the free peoples of Gondor by burning their houses, bombing their cities and stealing their shit.
@@cpt.mystic_stirling That's actually a digest of russian news of last two months. And despite living by Dol Guldur, I'd still would like the Gondor to win, if you know what I mean. Sadly, fellow orcs couldn't help gondorians cause of Sauron spies and evil Nazguls.... Of course, I'm talking about Middle-Earth. If you have questions - we can discuss Tolkien more ;)
There is a book written with this exact concept it's called 'The Last Ringbearer' It frames Mordor as being on the verge of an industrial revolution vs the reactionary west. It's written by Kirill Eskov.
@@mikhaelgribkov4117 Yes, it's fitting, but not in the way that you might think. I've just checked his LiveJournal, and and in his posts he makes fun of all the lies and spin on official Russian state news, especially now during the war in Ukraine. So he has intimate experience with spin and propaganda, but not as its wielder, but as an intellectual Russian who has to live all his life surrounded by all those lies and spin. I've read the book itself, when I was about 20, and I do remember it as lesson to never trust a one-sided story, and always look for objective truth.
@Sabizos assholes invade my country since 2014, start war, execute civilians and you ask me to not treat them like pathetic orks who don't have a backbone? Pls, I will stop my russophobia when people over there get shit together and do what Ukrainians did when Yankukovoch gone full dictator. On 2 of may, 2014, Ukrainian people made russian thugs in Odessa (my city), which started shooting in the crowd, run like cowards into building to throw molotovs, little did they knew that their building turn into grave of fire. It wasn't police, some of which had russian flags on helmet, not some army division, this were people who managed to kick filth in the corner. This is the difference between people and orcs - having will to stand for own liberty and as far as I know, russians are too happy to sell it in futile attempt to return empire.
@@mikhaelgribkov4117 I'm glad that, despite enduring an imperialistic invasion, most Ukrainian people still have the emotional intelligence to recognize that the Russian people are also victims of the Russian government. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be one of them. EDIT: By the way, I don't mean to invalidate your experiences or your anger and I fully support the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialism. But calling Russians "orcs" when they're out protesting in the streets against the war, and getting black-bagged by their own police for it, makes you ignorant at best.
"And then he went on a fever dream adventure with his CGI friends" This line tickled me just the right way. Great video, great concept and you got me laughing multiple times. You've earned yourself a new sub!
While I was laughing hard I suddenly realized how uncomfortably close this is how certain political and social groups present our world. That made me realize how good your work is. Well done!
Certain groups? I honestly doubt there are unbiased political/social groups or news outlets. People love putting things in boxes under a black and white mentality. Being able to step away from that and look at the objective situation quite unique.
sauron: the elves are obviously nazi's, the dwarves capitalist, the human illegal immigrants and the hobbits are Amish. so we need to liberate them of there heads, with a series of special operations.
I think sorcery in middle earth only works in places that are “magically active” such as inside a wizard’s tower or in the presence of an ancient being of fire
@@shigekax yeah, a gazillion casts of longstrider + windwalk w/o long rests to get the army there in time so he ended up with just the attuned longsword and a staff of shielding
i was so busy laughing about the universal health care even for prisoners that i missed the prisoner exchange. i went back watched it again because of the health care line for prisoners again and missed the prisoner exchange. then went back again and and my stomach started cramping from laughing so hard at the prisoner exchange moment. i think i rewatch that section 15 or 20 times
I think Silmarillion is a bit less biased than LOTR. It shows how greedy, cruel, arrogant and generally fucked up were the elves, especially Fëanor's clan.
Sauron did nothing wrong. It's not even possible to kill 6 million Gondorians in Barad-dúr, those numbers are highly inflated. Besides Barad-dúr had pools and brothels for Gondorian inmates. They even had their own currency.
"The Last Ringbearer" by Kirill Yeskov. its my favorite to read. it expands on the idea of "history is written by winners". i highly recommend it to every LOTR fans.
You're absolutely right Toast, and I think we need a spectacularly expensive trilogy of movies from Sauron's point of view depicting the aggressive invasion (or special military operation as I believe they are calling them these days) of the axis of elves, hobbits etc. Someone get Peter Jackson on the phone and Tolkien on the Ouija board and let's make this happen.
Your production quality is really on point and the scripts are funny and clever. You deserve way more viewers, and I hope one day when you have millions and millions of subs I can reminisce about being one of the first 5k. Keep on going my man!
I’ve never seen so few viewers for something so high quality. It’s like I want to shake the RU-vid algorithm and be like hey, recommend this shit to people!
@@howistoast I noticed you've only been making videos for less than a year, how'd you go about making such polished content in such a short time? did have previous experience already?
I will never not think that the fact they gave the Tolkein classics to the guy who did Braindead, Bad taste, and that movie where muppets F#$k each other, is hilarious.
To everyone who enjoys these alternative perspectives on LOTR/Middle Earth I can recommend reading "The Last Ringbearer" by Kirill Yeskov, a non-commercial novel (some 120 pages, freely downloadable) about the aftermath of the War of the Ring, in which a man from Gondor finds out what the Elves and Gandalf are really about - and then has to save the world from their evil plot with the help of an orc and a troll. Even Saruman and the Ringwraiths come off as good guys. It's a captivating story and written so well, you really want the protagonists to succeed in their mission.
I read it a few months ago. It's good, but it's missing the "feel" of Middle-Earth. It reminds me more of modern fantasy than Tolkien's works. Really neat perspective, though.
It came across to me as typical modern progressive rewriting of narratives. Kind of like how Disney is creating lots of movies that review traditional tales from the baddie's perspective" Sympathy for the devil, basically.
Came for Mordor, stayed for all the content. Really wonderful stuff. Your videos are helping me get through a difficult childbirth and hospital stay that keeps getting elongated. Thank you very, very much doe what you have made. It’s wonderful.
Actually orcs and goblins are the same race. You can use those terms interchangeably. Uruk-Hai are Orcs/Goblins mixed with Humans so kinda separate race. Orcs may hate each other based rather on clan/tribe affiliation than race.
The fact that this timeline actually got the LotR movies and did the source material justive and everything with its Rube-Goldberg-like production worked out is proof that we have not ALWAYS lived in Harambe's cursed timeline.
There is a timeline where Harambe survived into middle age but learned how to sign a very bad racist word. Like Peter Jackson before he made the Hobbit, better to go out in a torrent of blood than be thrown to the mercy of the cruel arms of the clock.
Great April fools video! I love how you spend the first half of the video legitimately criticizing the good guys in ways that I don't hear often enough, and then your "defense" of the bad guys is a complete joke! Loved it!
The book explain this better, but Gandalf and Frodo also procrastinated on getting the ring out of the Shire, resulting in the enemy almost getting it and severely limiting their options for how they should travel to Mordor, resulting in them having to go through the mines of Moria. But ofc Gandalf's plan all along was to get himself killed so he didn't have to be responsible for the whole mess. Wasn't there a book like this once, it was basically Lotr-fan fiction, and the premise was that original Lotr was just history written by the victors while this book was was really happened?
🤣🤣🤣 This was a great satire. Much better than the lunacy I hear from some who say Thanos was a good guy trying to save people by wiping out half of them. 🤪🥴
The scary thing is the similarity between how this video ignores all context on the path to making it's point and the way various contemporary political movements do the same exact mental gymnastics (and people actually buy into it). 😢 Very well done though.
Even though this might have been an April fool's joke, it does play with a rather intriguing concept. History is indeed written by the victors, and there's always two sides to a coin. All biological creatures are programmed to survive, and the dehumanization of the Orcs does indeed raise some doubts.
That means you don't understand the meaning/moral behind the story. The real evil in the story is the corruption of the ring, which basically is the corruption of power. Sauron is an embodiment of that corruption, of which Morgoth is the god and Morgoth took already existing creatures and corrupted them into orcs and all the other evils. So how can you even say "the dehumanization of the Orcs does indeed raise some doubts"? Their entire creation came from darkness. The story is about good vs evil, not about biological creatures wanting to survive.
@@crocrox2273 Corruption and Darkness are both human concepts. There are very few things in nature which can be "pure". Even space is not pure vaccum or pure darkness. It is a story of course, a work of fiction, but a lot of such fiction could close our minds from the truth about the Universe. An immersive plot often plays with the dichotomy in nature, showing how the light falls into darkness, or light rising out of darkness.
@@wulfheort8021 Thanks for that lesson on Tolkien's fiction. It isn't that I don't understand the concepts of "real evil" or "good vs evil", just that they, like many other artificial concepts, don't exist in their "pure" forms in nature. To be clear, my doubt wasn't so much about the plot or the fictional world of Tolkien, but how that zealous search for "purity" and the clean separation of good vs evil, through our fiction and culture, detatched from any sense of realism, could have led to many X-isms (replace X with "race", "fasc" etc.). The most immersive dreams, and the most immersive stories, are the ones, that feel real to us (even when they create a fictional world), and play with the strange inter-mingling of light and darkness, Yin and Yang in the Universe. I understand what Tolkien wrote(even though English may not be my first language), and what the movies showed. I wish, they could have been a bit more nuanced, and acknowledged the chaos of reality a bit more.
@@SiddharthaGhoshSid Good and evil are not completely black and white in Tolkien's work. Look at the men of Rhûn, Harad and the conflict between the 3 kingdoms of Arnor or between dwarves and elves. Tolkien his work is not about representing real life, it's about the eternal conflict between good and evil without ever having an ultimate victor. It's actually in its meaning very similar to (Germanic) Pagan myths or heroic stories like Beowulf, which serve as a guidance for men and women to be as close to ideal as possible. That's why Aragorn is the embodiment of the noble heroic king and Galadriel the embodiment of the elegant and deeply wise mother/queen. Another example where you can see this Pagan character of his work is Gandalf fighting the Balrog. Balrog is derived from the Old Norse word for 'fire-power' (referrence to the sun). Gandalf the grey, representing the grey soul of a person (grey because of good and bad things that have happened in that person's life) fights and kills but also dies by the Balrog's doing. Gandalf comes back as Gandalf the white. Basically all that represents the grey soul of a dead person being cleansed and returning in the next life as yet again a white clean soul. The Lord Of the Rings is actually a new mythology meant to guide children through life as they grow up to become the best they can be. And that's what Pagan mythology is also about
i took a swig of water and almost spat it out when you said the leader of the elves spends the entire movie trying to prevent his daughter from interracial marriage lol.
The really ironic thing is that JRR Tolkein *really did* intend for Mordor to represent industrialization and "progress." He was kinda like the unabomber, but instead of killing people, he wrote books and built a world. I think that's pretty based, but that's just me.
I will push back on the notion that Gandalf didn't know the Balrog was in the mine....he absolutely knew. It was the whole reason he didn't want to go into the mine. He knew that the Dwarves had dug up the Balrog and there was a chance they would have to face it to get through the mine.
This is actually scary, imagine a criminal spinning the concept like this and mixing up or playing around both judicial Justice and procedural Justice like a fidget spinner, it might could quickly turned out from a criminal into a victim and get away with it... Things could turn around and changes simply depends on how the story been narrated, it's crazy af
very humorous video! I'm an avid fan of both the books and the movies and find no flaws in the work, but you put a better spin on the narrative than CNN! If you don't know all the facts it totally works :D
this was an entertaining video and I’m just gonna move past the inaccuracies solely because it’s HILARIOUS like i have never seen a funnier depiction of gandalf ever
This was a brilliant tongue-in-cheek critique of Lord of the Rings, but you actually hinted at some real themes which reflect Tolkien's political ideology. He was not a fan of the industrialization of society, because he saw how this turned men into cogs, which could be more easily controlled and operated by the private and state actors who wanted to place all power and authority in the hands of an elite cadre of social planners or managers. Tolkien was against what he called 'the Machine'. Wrapped up in this term is industrialization, pollution, state-building, war-making, atomization, etc. I think if industrialization had been a completely voluntary act, Tolkien would have made peace with it, but, especially in England, the actual course of history often included driving people off land they had used to survive for generations. The Inclosure Acts worked to alienate thousands of farmers from their livelihoods so that they'd have no choice but to go work in the factories - for the greater glory of England. US history also has a tinge of this kind of utilitarian thinking. Way before their was an EPA, private courts settled pollution and industrial damage cases on a case by case basis, and it was working. So well, in fact that the corporate heads had to get the state to put a stop to these lawsuits, so that people would be forced to accept a level of pollution and property damage for the greater good of America as a burgeoning industrial power. Another real theme you touched on was the difference in discrimination and interracial unity between Mordor and the free world outside its gates. The only style of government which can erase racial (really cultural) discrimination is the totalitarian state (and even Mordor was unsuccessful at this - see orcs vs Uruk Hai). Freedom implies the right to associate with whoever you want, and it also gives people the right to live however they want. It follows then that certain groups will live differently and will choose to dissociate with members of other groups whose way of life is (at least perceived to be) discordant with their own. The only time this is bad is when aggression is committed either directly (through private hands) or indirectly (through the state) by one group against another.
Exacty! A another thing to mention is how orcs being farmers… the books state that the mordor actualy have very fertile farm lands thank to the mount doom, and most orcs are basically weaponized farmers :/
First, Tolkien was a conservative and was OK with Middle Earth being ruled by a king, who does have 'all power and authority' and 'control the people'. Somehow his king was supposed to be better, maybe because there was no industry (and because, in general, conservatives fetishise 'tradition', which is supposed to make arbitrary power somehow good and non-tyrannical, as if people living now had freely chosen their society's traditions, or as if dead people had a right to have their traditions maintained and that right overrode the rights of their living posterity). It is by no means clear how the 'free world' outside of Mordor is actually 'more free' than it, it certainly isn't composed of republics and democracies. Second, the Inclosure acts were not totalitarian acts 'for the glory of England', but cases of enforcing of private interests by a government captured by them. Solidarity of the poor against the rich, which would have counteracted this sort of thing, is something Tolkien satirises in the end of LOTR, just as conservatives generally attack socialism as supposedly 'tyrannical'. As for the courts thing - with or without an EPA, there needed to be a law created by the 'evil' state in order for 'the courts to work', so demonising it is unjustified. (And not everyone has the resources to sue, even if courts couldn't be bought, which they can.) The state working for 'the corporate heads' is explained by the fact that it was bought by said corporate heads, not by 'utilitarian thinking' - pollution is harmful, hence not justified by utilitarianism as such, it just happened to be the case that the ones harmed most were poor and the ones harmed least in proportion to their profits were rich. Third, properly racial, not cultural discrimination is a very real thing that has occurred many times and in many places in world history. Fourth, the picture of 'cultural discrimination' as arising from 'dissociation', inspired by modern anti-immigrant rhetoric, has almost never been true. Usually, it has arisen through conquest or enslavement of one group by the other. Even with immigrants, the people have never voted not to let them in, they first allow them in and then discriminate against them. The thing about 'other groups having a way of life discordant with our own' is usually bollocks deliberately promoted by the powers that be: in retrospect, the notion that US Protestants are unable to live in the same country as Irishmen and other Catholics is obviously absurd, and yet people were dead serious about their supposedly 'discordant ways of life' 200-150 years ago. If you can't bear to live in the same country or even visit the same restaurant as people different from yourself, then you're the one that there's something wrong with. It's perfectly possible to have a multiethnic and multireligious society without discrimination - especially without state discrimination, you just don't pass discriminatory laws, it's a simple as that - and moreover it is inevitable - populations are already heavily intermingled for historical and economic reasons and it's impossible to split them into so many homogeneous states. Moreover, people differ along many different lines besides ethnicity and race, and separating them all into states of perfectly similar people is even less possible. What's more, this impulse is profoundly oppressive, b/c there are always people remaining who don't want to be like everybody else in the group in a certain respect, circumstances make it difficult to move between groups even when there is a unique well-defined group to move to, and such people would then be forced to be the same as the others in order to adapt to the requirements of an intolerant group. For instance, if a country is declared to be 'just for Christians', this delegitimises the presence not only of Muslims who want immigrate, but also of locals there who might be or become atheists, who might want to convert to Buddhism or whatever else. Ultimalely, your ideal of collective freedom to discriminate means profound unfreedom for the people being discriminated against. And, yes, a truly totalitarian tyranny of the community over the individual. In short, US libertarian propaganda is nonsense.
@@dumupad3-da241 I certainly appreciate your long and thorough response, which is not typical for RU-vid comments, so let me return the favor and address the points you raised. 1. Tolkien was a conservative who valued the governing model of kingship, but he was vehemently against the state. How is this possible? Most kings were not heads of state. It's not surprising, since I gather you are some variety of socialist, that you are not aware of the limited nature of the authority and power of kings and the stateless nature of the political order of medieval Europe. You probably equate kings with dictators, when the difference could not be more stark. Even "absolute" kings after the arrival of the state model of governance had trouble raising taxes and needed the aid of nobles and other representatives of the common people. Tradition is not a fetish, but a blueprint of all the things that have worked (and many that haven't) through the ages. Some aspects of tradition are bad, and some are good. It is the job of the conservative to sort through the mixed bag we are handed by our forbears to find which traditions are good and hence true and worthy of passing on to the next generation. Radicals, on the other hand, see nothing good in tradition, and wish to toss it all out root and branch. When they get into power, however, they inevitably prove the caution for change and reverence of the past of conservatives wise in horrifying and tragic ways. It is also by no means clear that republics and democracies are any guarantee of freedom, since slavery, mass killing, and myriad other forms of oppression are a regular feature of these. The crimes of the 20th century alone far overshadow the crimes of a thousand years of kingship in Europe. Ultimately, freedom comes down to choice. If you can choose who governs you and the laws you live under, without having to run for your life or uproot your whole life, you might be free. In Medieval Europe, feudalism was a form of governance based primarily on personal bonds (fealty, homage), not territorial boundaries. Of course, feudalism was not perfect and life was tough back then, due to a variety of extraneous factors, but there is much good that can be taken from its example, as well as the other examples from this ante-state time period (such as city leagues, imperial cities, communes, city-states, the Church, etc.). 2. You cannot have a state without private actors striving to taking hold of it, unless you erect a communist dictatorship. And the more prerogative the state has in the affairs of others (especially in regards to property and trade), the more the reward for capturing the state will be. One of the beautiful points of the Lord of the Rings was that you cannot use the power of the one ring to do good; it will corrupt you and bring about unanticipated evil through your desire to do good. The ends do not justify the means. In every society there will be poor and rich and people in between, and often the rich will work to solidify their position at the expense of the mass of those under them. Only Christianity has tempered this by morally requiring that the rich must give to and take care of the poor. Even socialism has inherited its regard for the poor from Christianity, though it generally has materialistic aims and tends to utilize the poor only as a means of facilitating its inherent desire for centralized power. 3. Yes racial discrimination is and has been a real thing, but why does this occur? It occurs because of underlying cultural differences, which, until fairly recently, were pretty well distributed by race. It is only now in the information age and the age of racial mixing and migration that one's culture cannot be taken for granted given one's race. And yet still, even in America in the 21st century, there are a lot of cultural differences between the races, though many are not or shouldn't be important or cause for conflict. 4. If people believe that others are living in discordant ways, even if they are mistaken or being irrational, then that is enough to cause conflict. Our purpose in creating norms of behavior, and the laws built on top of them, is to minimize or eliminate conflict. Conflict is exacerbated when one governing apparatus has a monopoly of jurisdiction over a territory with diverse cultural groups who see each other's way of life as discordant with their own. It is especially so if this government is democratically selected, disregards localized autonomy, and meddles endlessly in the personal affairs of its citizens. I'm not saying that only homogeneous communities are viable (a white socialist state is just as bad as a cosmopolitan one), but there has to be some common ground to stand on for people to get together in harmony. In Medieval Europe, this common ground was found in Christ, and the nature of kingship (governance by personal bond) necessarily approved the intermixing of cultures by way of mixed royal marriages. Federalism and subsidiarity are both conservative principles of governance, and short of a complete private law society, they are among the best ways to mitigate racial and cultural differences between people living next to each other or in close proximity.
My goodness, will you people please learn to use line breaks? I already have a headache and I don't want another one attempting to read monolithic blocks of text. Please, be like the original poster: include breaks in your formatting.
I enjoyed this video. It was fun. Good editing. I left a like. The Tolkien nerd in me def wanted to scream about all the information you conveniently left out or got wrong though.
Whether you're in Star Wars, James Bond or LOTR, people will be killed either way, even from and by both sides. Luke Skywalker is considered a hero, but he destroyed an entire space station filled with workers who just happened to be there to work and make a living for themselves and for their family. If you're a henchman in a spy-fi film, you might get killed simply because of your choice to work there, during the shift were the superior invader enters the evil lair. However, in LOTR, the orcs, the uruks and the goblins didn't choose to be born in their specific species, and yet, they are categorized as evil, simply because of their race, which somehow makes them evil. *I guess the people of Mordor were discriminated by race by the good guys!*
The Death Star workers were in a military base and we're complacent in the murder of billions. Orcs, uruks and goblins were created to be evil in the service of evil.
I'd say it's much worse than that. Luke Skywalker, the last Jedi, joined Princess Leia's rebellion because he had the hots for her, not because of any political motive. Leia's politics were reactionary, trying to restire the power of the landed aristocracy through terrorism, using her own private army. The regular imperial military was so understaffed and underfunded that a provincial governor could build a fortress that outgunned the entire inperial navy. And that governor tried to usurp the power behind the throne by force as well. Then the prequels showed that the Jedi order as a corrupt extra-legal organisation that uses mind control to recruit child soldiers, even gong as far as trying to assassinate the elected head of government to protect their privileges. James Bond was written by Ian Fleming, an actual spy for the British Empire, as a parody of spook stories. Bond is an undisciplined and poorly educated drunkard who keeps getting captured by the enemy and has to be rescued. He is also a misogynist and a racist with borderline Fascist views, although some of that was apparently on Fleming himself. I read an article about Lotr, how its anti-industrial sentiment became popular with the Hippies in the sixties, but how it is also regurgitates views about racial purity and superiority, and about Christian Europe being beleaguered by godless Muslims from Africa and China, an amalgamation of views propagated by the British aristocacy and of Christian propaganda from the times of the crusades. After the early fourties those views became noticeably less popular, but with the increasingly acute concern of environmenalism the anti-industrial sentiment seemed justified if you ignore the genocidal aspects of the story, and of course the appeal had nothing to do with the Cause of the agricultural South against the industrial North, no sir.
This is some perfect spin, it only holds up if you have a very surface level understanding of the world. The second you know any of the deep lore the whole thing falls apart. It’s perfect lol.
Like the video, and all the effort. I realize this is satire and appreciate you making this video, but I’m going to assume you’ve never read the books? Again I realize this is satire and I enjoyed the video!
For a second I really did forget that the whole purpose of the videl was to spin the situation around, and got super confused about "died by looking for natural underground resources" and "a war criminal who takes the crown even tho everyone saw that under his leadership the world would go to shit"
Possibly, all Ring of Power ‘technology’ can be argued to be the propriety of Sauron. He directly helped forge 17 of them. The other 3 were made according to the invention he designed and without given notice, nor His permission. He asked that all 19 be surrendered to him & was refused before he invaded, then murdered his former partners
@@78bezza Celebrimbor did not teach Mairon ("The Admirable"). Artano ("the High Smith") Aulendil ("Friend of Aule") Annatar ("Lord of Gifts") taught Celebrimbor and his Gwaith-i-Mírdain arts known only to the one who was in truth the greatest of all of Aule's disciples before he decided that Melkor ("who arises in might") had even more to teach him. We shouldn't be insulting anyone using elven slurs such as Sauron ("The Abhorred"), Gorthaur ("the abominable horror"), or Morgoth ("the black enemy"). That said, IP monopolies are among the greatest evils of the modern world and should be opposed more strongly than any army from Arda
The sheer amount of people not getting the joke is just evidence, that this video is just so unbelievable well constructed. Almost got me, till you started talking about industrialisation.
This is basically the plot of "The Last Ringbearer", a book written by a Soviet physicist who wrote the story of Lord of the Rings from the standpoint of the Orcs, and also said that Mordor was a science-based industrializing society which fought against an apartheid racist and low-key nazi society that is represented in the Elves and Gondor.
While this video is mostly intended to be a joke, it makes some good points. Even without Sauron, the races of Middle-Earth have racist tendencies and even occasionaly fight each other. People that read the Silmarillion and the Appendix at the end of Return of the King know what I am talking about. Sure, the orcs tend to do the same, but considering that they were tortured and corrupted until all goodness inside them vanished, the fact that they have any semblance of civilization is remarkable on its own. The presence of Sauron as a God-King ensured that they stayed focused on a singular main purpose. And concerning Gandalf, reading the Lord of the Rings books made me see him in a more negative way. So, after the War of the Ring, he and the Hobbits are walking around with no stress whatsoever, and then they find out that there's trouble in the region around the Shire, which is pretty obviously the work of Saruman. But Gandalf refuses to go with them and resolve the situation because, and I will quote "My time is over, it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so." So basically, Gandalf only aided the people from Middl-Earth, because it was his duty given to him by the Valar. Not out of genuine altruism or an attempt to save Middle-Earth from two individuals that so happen to be from the very kind Gandalf is. And the Silmarillion just adds more fuel to the fire. The Valar are pretty much short-sighted and negligent. They got fooled by Morgoth more than once and allowed him to desolate Middle-Earth with near inpunity, and only imprisoned him after he had already wrecked Beleriand. They clearly favored the Elves over Men, explaining why many humans grew to envy the Elves and later side with Sauron. They didn't bother to capture Sauron and bring him to trial after Morgoth was defeated, and allowed him to build his own empire for two entire ages. They allowed Sauron to corrupt Numenor, and only intervened when Sauron made the Numenorians invade Valinor They didn't realize that Saruman wasn't fit to lead the Istari. So basically the whole plot in Tolkien lore is a bunch of incompetent and short-sighted good guys vs a bunch of despotic, but efficent bad guys.
I get the point of everything you are saying, but it is all very very wrong. Gandalf, or even the Valar weren't supposed to solve all of the problems for the races of middle earth. Let's start with Gandalf. First of all the Valar sent him to middle earth in the form of a wise old man with much of his former power gone. They did this so that he wouldn't become prideful like Saruman and become a villain just like Sauron. They also took away his power because he wasn't supposed to solve all of the problems in middle earth. He was just supposed to be a guide. Let me ask you a question. Do you teach a child to do good in school by doing all his homework for him? No. Gandalf wasn't supposed to do everyone's homework for them. They would've become too reliant upon him like the child who's parents do all his homework for him. He was just supposed to be a teacher and a guide, not a cheat sheet for how to beat Sauron. It was kinder of the Valar to let the people of middle earth figure things out for themselves (with a little bit of guidance) than for them to just give them all the answers. This is why Gandalf leaving the Hobbits to deal with their own problems at the end of the book isn't such a bad thing. He was there only to guide them in the fight against the supernatural villain that was Sauron. He was done with his job of helping to defeat the being that men and elves could never have defeated without him. So he left the Hobbits because he knew he wasn't needed any more and he wanted them to learn to fight evil on their own. In conclusion I see where you're coming from but everything you've said is terribly wrong.
@@kalebb4792 While I concede that, yes, the Valar wanted that the races of Middle-Earth to not become dependent on them, the main problem is that most of the troubles said races endured occured because the Valar are pretty negligent as caretakers. This is not just case of parents wanting children to learn how to do homework by themselves. This is like teachers not giving proper teaching and then expecting the kids to succeed without the proper guidance. The main reason why Morgoth and Sauron did as much damage as they did to Middle-Earth was because the Valar only reacted when it was too late. When they first defeated Morgoth, they didn't bother in getting rid of the orcs for good, nor did they bother in imprisoning neither Sauron nor the Balrogs. They remained hidden in Middle-Earth, while their numbers grew, all the while the Valar stayed focused on the Elves, and only the Elves that traveled to Valinor. Later, they bought Morgoth's lies, and only too late did they realize that he had already turned some of the Elves against them. When the race of Men appeared, the Valar not even once contacted them, like they did with the Elves, and yet they were furious that many of them joined Morgoth. The Valar only went to war after an ancestor of Aragorn came to Valinor and pleaded, and by this time, pretty much all Elven realms in Middle-Earth have already been destroyed by Morgoth. And now onto Sauron. Sauron has been Morgoth's most powerful and loyal servant, and he played a huge role in pretty much all Morgoth's evils. And yet the Valar didn't imprison him right away when he appeared after Morgoth's defeat. No, they allowed him to flee and hide in Middle-Earth, and he spent centuries building his empire and becoming the Second Dark Lord. He nearly corrupted the races of Men, Elves and Dwarves with the Rings of Power and he corrupted Numenor from within. And the Valar allowed him to do it. They only retaliated when Sauron made the Numenorians invade Valinor, and he only did so because he wanted. Imagine if Sauron hadn't done so. Middle-Earth would have fallen before the combined mights of Mordor and Numenor no doubt. They only sent the Wizards to guide the Free Peoples in the year 1000 of the Third Age. And one of them, the leader by the way, turned corrupt and sought to become another Sauron. Yes, the Valar didn't want to damage Middle-Earth, since their wars with Morgoth tore apart entire regions. But had they been more careful from the start and noticed the signs, then things wouldn't have gotten the way it did.
@@lisboah I actually agree with a lot of what you just said. I think the Valar did make a lot of choices that could've been viewed as mistakes. Like when they let Feanor and the Noldor go to middle earth without trying to stop them, or when they let Sauron free after they took down Morgoth. Yes they did make mistakes, and I think that Tolkien intentionally made them flawed, they aren't the gods of Arda, Eru Illuvatar is the god of Arda. They aren't perfect like him. I don't think this is a flaw of Tolkien's stories though, as you seem to think it is. Good guys in Tolkien's stories are either wise, or sometimes not the brightest like the Hobbits. Whereas his Villains are the tricky and scheming ones. From the way Tolkien's stories are written, it may seem like all his characters, including the Valar are just a bunch of stupid good guys that just win because they're the good guys, however one of the biggest themes in Tolkien's work is that a small act of kindness can change the world, such as Bilbo and Frodo sparing Golems life. So a lot of the time Tolkien's good guys "mistakes" are them acting out of kindness or just doing what's right. When the Valar let the Noldor return to middle earth, it may have seemed like a mistake, but they were respecting the elves freedom of choice as children of Eru. Because of this respect and kindness towards the elves, Earendil was ablt to be born and inform the Valar of the damage Melkor was causing in middle earth. Again one small act of kindness can change the world. And when they let Sauron go, they genuinely thought he had repented and wanted to let him back. And if they hadn't have made this "mistake" The Lord of The Rings Would Never Have Been written and the third age of middle earth would've been a lot more boring. So while what you say is true to some degree, it is not a flaw in Tolkien's work as you seem to see it as. It actually makes it more deep and meaningful than any other work of fantasy.
A simpler spin. A while ago this bad guy wanted to rule everything, so he ruined the lifes of several civilizations, he died and then a while later the bad guy's underling manipulated the ruined civilizations in order to wipe out the good guys just so the underling can control everything
the part where you say how the good guys twisted the story totally make sense, the part where you show sauron like such a good guys, make less senses though
I was about to spend an hour explaining a lot of the inaccurate representations and descriptions that undermine the deeper lore until i realize this is just goofing off so i'll take it on the chin it's funny lol To address some of the pertinent points---The important things is that the orcs and Sauron are not 'evil' in character, per se, they are the personification of evil by their nature and creation. Morgoth creator of all things which ever caused discord created anything that is evil up to and including any conflict in the world between any race, and hate and prejudice, lying and all bad things you can think off, he is a defacto Satan figure that represents destruction and malice and his corruption on the world is continued through his disciple Sauron...That's why it makes no sense to say the good guys are not so good, they hate each other etc-Any BAD that you can find in them or in the entire world is the direct cause of Morgoth and by extension Sauron as he perdures his work. So it's not a question of perspective whereby there is a differing point of view or grey area, that's never what Tolkien had in mind, it's not the history of 'good people triumphing over bad people' so much as the values of good, cooperation friendship and love managing to overcome the essence of evil personified in Sauron. The vision of Frodo seeing in the mirror is what would happen if he failed in his quest mind you....I don't know what you saying that Aragorn becoming King would result in that have to do with it...Middle Earth prospered without war for centuries after he became King
If I would be ruling a backwards wasteland I would also try to rapidly industrialize. Stalin did exactly that and it worked considering Russia, Belarus und Ukraine still exist today. Lord of the Rings is basically WW2 but the axis and allies join forces against the soviets.
Yeah, LotR's "those guys in the east are industrializing, we should murder them" becomes a bit uncomfortable once you realize that in the real world, there were industrializing Russians in the east.
Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians. Not what I would call something that worked. It is part of the reason why the Ukrainians are fighting so hard today.
He was, in a way. -He only aided the Free People because that was the duty given to him by the Valar. After Sauron was defeated, he no longer aided said people with the consequences. A truly good person would have aided others even if that wasn't part of the mission -He wasn't above resorting to scheming and witholding information -It was easy for him to send others to their deaths. As a Maiar, he could never be truly killed. He literally had plot armor
Ah ! Very right indeed ! I also thaught that Gandalf always was a 19th lvl fighter and 1st level wizard with taumaturgy, light, shield, minor illusion and some background features
For all of the amazing decisions the studio made with producing lord of the rings, choosing Peter, the casting the sound design the score, to this day I still believe the number one reason the movie is the way it is is because they shot it in film and not digital. That is what truly gives it that feel, that feel that is hard to get nowadays with all of this digital filming that is so sanitized and artificial
I never believed that ALL the orcs were killed in the "Last Battle". Some of them must had survived and had children, so to continue their lifestyle and their mission. This video is the clear evidence of my predictions.
Because they are morons. That was the original plan. Frigging wizard died on the way to the eagles and at the last moment he realized he didn't tell anyone else the plan. He tried to tell them before he fell "fly you fools" but they didn't know what he meant, and then after boromire went and tried to murder frodo everyone was scattered all over the place. It took gandolf like 4 thousand years in wizard time to come back to life and be placed in middle earth agian, and by then everyone had their own side quest going, and the eagles had no idea what had happend.
Gandalf wanted it to be an unforgettable event, which would not be a two-day flight, casually throwing the ring into the flames and jumping back on the next flight home.
