What Tolkien himself would have thought...

Arvedui · Jan 6, 2004

I was reading through The Letters of JRR Tolkien, and #210 really got my mind into overdrive. Here are Tolkien's own commentaries on the proposed storyline for a cartoon-film. quite a lot of what Tolkien wrote in June 1958, is valid also 46 years later:

If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occation the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.

The letter Z stands for Zimmerman, who wanted to make a film of Lord of the Rings.

The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in intrusion of unwanted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

Exaggeration and intrusion of unwanted matter.... Does this ring a bell to anyone?

He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights;

This is still 1958, and not 2003, though one might wonder...

'Old scamp!' This is a good example of the general tendency that I find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more childish fairy-tale.

Does anyone else but me think of Gimli right now?

Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Z's chief faults.) Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?

Tolkien is here writing about Weathertop, and there is more:

The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not 'spur'. There is no fight.

There definately was one in the film that I saw...

Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows - until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed - would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.

Tolkien didn't know what would happen to his story some 28 - 30 years after his death. Luckily...

The Balrog never speaks or make any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer.... Z may think he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

Tolkien of course did not say anything about imitation of a jet-engine, so I guess that PJ was right here

I do earnestly hope that in the assignement of actual speeches to the characters they will be presented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent pervertion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and the scenery.

So much for hope...

It almost seems as if Z, having spent much time and work on Pan I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience to deal with the two more difficult volumes in which the action becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last almost to a delirium.... The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the company leading to the 'heroic' matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.

Could someone please tell PJ what was the Prime Action, and what was Subsidiary?

I deeply regret this handling of the 'Treebeard' chapter, whether necesarry or not. I have already suspected Z of not being interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a quite unintellegible glimpse? What are Ents?

Tolkien is not the only one to regret this!

I am afraid I do not find the glimpse of the 'defence of Hornburg' - this would be a better title, since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind is not shown - entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.

Are any comments really needed?

Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. Saruman would never have comitted suicide: to cling to life to its basest dregs is the way of the son of person he had become. If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!'

I could be fair to PJ, and state some of the things that he got right, according to Tolkien, but on the whole, I don't think Mr. Jackson is worth it. Others who find the films to be the Eigth Wonder of the World will probably do so anyway.

joxy · Jan 6, 2004

Arvedui said:
....quite a lot of what Tolkien wrote in June 1958, is valid also 46 years later:

It's always been clear that this letter has an almost uncanny relevance to today. Thanks very much for picking out the most relevant parts of it. Shall we ever know whether PJ as much as knew of the existence of the letter, or, if he did know it, whether he conveniently forgot all those relevant parts, or deliberately went against Tolkien in the way he carried them out?
Could he understand concepts such as "the general tendency....to reduce and lower the tone"? Did he know what that means?

Elessar II · Jan 6, 2004

I could be fair to PJ, and state some of the things that he got right, according to Tolkien, but on the whole, I don't think Mr. Jackson is worth it.

To each his own.

Anyway, are these the only examples of what Tolkien would dislike in the films? If so, then I think that all in all, Tolkien would have really enjoyed the films. I don't think even he could imagine that such things as Minas Tirith, Lothlorien, Rivendell, and even the Shire could really be brought to life. Sure, there were some parts of the movie he wouldn't be thrilled about, (no author likes to have his stories changed at all even if they are for the good of the film ) but the scenes that were done right far outnumbered those that were done wrong.

The Balrog never speaks or make any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer.... Z may think he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

In the movie, I don't believe that the Balrog really made any "vocal" sounds per se, but that the noises he made were from the fires pouring through the cracks and crevices of his body, as well as from the flames being blown from his mouth. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Ol'gaffer · Jan 6, 2004

You're being very unfair in this case.

Look at the changes that Z has made. Balrog laughing, no schreeching from the wraiths, badly done ents. Most of these things were done properly by PJ.

And I know that I'm going to get Joxy on my back for this, but Tolkien did not know anything about movies. He thought of them as a low art form, if even that, and did not regard them in any light. also, he was known to be the extreme nit-pick, especially in literature, so bringing out this letter to try and "prove" that the movies are bad because Tolkien did not like what he had seen of the first draft done more than 30 years ago! And I think that nothing probably would have pleased him, he probably would have said alot of bad things about a version even better than PJs.

Let's face it, Tolkien hated cinema, he did not a single thing about it, so trying to prove anything by bringing up a old letter on a version that seems on paper to be worse than anything we've seen so far is useless.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

I believe Ellesar II is wrong when he states that the number of things that PJ got right outnumber the number of things that he got wrong. I think this is because as you get more specific and/or thorough about what constitutes a 'thing', the number of things that went wrong increases far faster than the number of things he got right.

for any of you who are really interested in a listing of exactly what he got right, and what exactly he got wrong, there is a site:
http://gary.appenzeller.net/
it is far more objective then i ever could bring myself to be.

to ol'gaffer i must say, calm down. the title of the thread is not 'the movie sucks because tolkien would have said so'. it is merely 'what tolkien would have thought'. and it proceeds to provide what i find to be very interesting clues into what he would have thought.

personally, i am happy to have proof for a few of the foibles the movie made. these things always made me angry, and now i know tolkien would have shared a similar opinion. i take comfort in the fact that he would have agreed with me. i don't accept it as a proof of any opinion on the quality of the movies.

Persephone · Jan 6, 2004

Elessar II said:
To each his own.
Anyway, are these the only examples of what Tolkien would dislike in the films? If so, then I think that all in all, Tolkien would have really enjoyed the films. I don't think even he could imagine that such things as Minas Tirith, Lothlorien, Rivendell, and even the Shire could really be brought to life. Sure, there were some parts of the movie he wouldn't be thrilled about, (no author likes to have his stories changed at all even if they are for the good of the film ) but the scenes that were done right far outnumbered those that were done wrong.

In the movie, I don't believe that the Balrog really made any "vocal" sounds per se, but that the noises he made were from the fires pouring through the cracks and crevices of his body, as well as from the flames being blown from his mouth. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

I agree. Besides, Tolkien is a WRITER, not a FILMAKER. There is an ocean of difference between the two arts. Though I believe Tolkien is a genius he does not have the knowledge and experience PJ has with filmaking, nor does he understand the craft at all. I've seen the cartoon feature he may be referring to and it doesn't come close to what PJ did. Plus Tolkien is not a perfect writer either. He made several mistakes and there are some things in the books that don't seem to coincide nor is rational.

Like that weathertop thing. In the book, Aragorn was able to fend off the ringwraiths all by himself - without a sword! How was he able to do that? Was he really that powerful?

Plus in the book, Sam put on the ring WHILE in Mordor, why didn't Sauron see him? he was right there in Cirith Ungol. Sauron must have detected him. But wasn't able to. Flaws, that are forgivable, I know, because as a whole the story is still staggering. So maybe we can let PJ off the hook as well.

Gothmog · Jan 6, 2004

He made several mistakes and there are some things in the books that don't seem to coincide nor is rational.

Like that weathertop thing. In the book, Aragorn was able to fend off the ringwraiths all by himself - without a sword! How was he able to do that? Was he really that powerful?

I find it strange that you have such a problem with the "weathertop thing"

No Aragorn is not that powerful and knew that himself.

'I am not a Black Rider, Sam,' he said gently, 'nor in league with them. I have been trying to discover something of their movements; but I have found nothing. I cannot think why they have gone and do not attack again. But there is no feeling of their presence anywhere at hand.'
When he heard what Frodo had to tell, he became full of concern, and shook his head and sighed. Then he ordered Pippin and Merry to heat as much water as they could in their small kettles, and to bathe the wound with it. 'Keep the fire going well, and keep Frodo warm!' he said. Then he got up and walked away, and called Sam to him. 'I think I understand things better now,' he said in a low voice. 'There seem only to have been five of the enemy. Why they were not all here, I don't know; but I don't think they expected to be resisted. They have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They will come again another night, if we cannot escape. They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him to their will. We shall see!' Sam choked with tears. 'Don't despair!' said Strider. 'You must trust me now. Your Frodo is made of sterner stuff than I had guessed, though Gandalf hinted that it might prove so. He is not slain, and I think he will resist the evil power of the wound longer than his enemies expect. I will do all I can to help and heal him. Guard him well, while I am away!' He hurried off and disappeared again into the darkness.

So while the resistance of Aragorn and the Hobbits was unexpected it was not that which drove off the Wraiths but the fact that they had wounded Frodo with a Morgul Knife caused them to think there was no need to continue.

Persephone · Jan 6, 2004

Gothmog said:
I find it strange that you have such a problem with the "weathertop thing"

No Aragorn is not that powerful and knew that himself.

So while the resistance of Aragorn and the Hobbits was unexpected it was not that which drove off the Wraiths but the fact that they had wounded Frodo with a Morgul Knife caused them to think there was no need to continue.

Ok, first of all, I don't have "such a problem" with the weathertop thing, I just cited that as one of those things that seemed to me a bit confussing.

Do you have an issue with me Gothmog? Cause you know you can PM me anytime, you don't have to post and nitpick especially if you don't understand the post entirely.

Gothmog · Jan 6, 2004

Narya. I do not have any problem with you. You posted about

some things in the books that don't seem to coincide nor is rational

Then you cited the Weathertop battle as one of these things. I simply answered your point. Nothing more, Nothing less.

Had I decided to "Nit-Pick" my post would have been much longer and included such points as if Tolkien had such a poor understanding of filmmaking the points in his letter would not have included such observations as

I should resent pervertion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and the scenery.

and

If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.

Both of which show that he was well aware of the types of changes that would be needed to adapt the book to film, and also the types of changes that would Not be needed.

I answered your post after reading the content, not the author.

Elessar II · Jan 6, 2004

-K- said:
I believe Elessar II is wrong when he states that the number of things that PJ got right outnumber the number of things that he got wrong. I think this is because as you get more specific and/or thorough about what constitutes a 'thing', the number of things that went wrong increases far faster than the number of things he got right.[QUOTE/]

Well, I guess it depends on your point of view.
But you have to remember that this is cinema, and the amount of casual movie-goers and agreeable Tolkien readers far outnumbers the amount of purists and NPW. Sure, PJ could have done a better job in their view, but to the majority of LOTR audiences, judging from the billions of dollars in net revenue, I'd say that not everybody thinks PJ got the whole thing wrong!

BTW, Welcome to the forum -K-!

joxy · Jan 6, 2004

Ol'gaffer said:
....I know that I'm going to get Joxy on my back for this, but Tolkien did not know anything about movies.
Tolkien hated cinema, he did not a single thing about it.

I've been criticised for using the word "wild" about a claim that someone else here made on a different subject, so I'm afraid I'm rather lost for a description for the claim you make about Tolkien and his knowledge and understanding of the medium of cinema.
Many of us have said here before that we don't need to know much about the technicalities of film-making to be able to point out obvious faults, both large and small, in what we see. Tolkien obviously, and quite reasonably, felt the same about his ability to discuss similar points in the screen-play he had been given to read.
Gothmog has already mentioned two of the most relevant points that Tolkien observed: perversion of characters, and excess of battle scenes. Again many of us have criticised PJ's films on precisely those grounds, which proves to me that Tolkien had a good understanding of the essentials of transferring a work from book to screen, and anticipated well the errors that a producer could fall into if he didn't have a deep enough understanding and appreciation of the source material.

Narya said:
I've seen the cartoon feature he may be referring to....
Tolkien is not a perfect writer either.

The film Tolkien was referring to was never made. The Bakshi version came considerably later.
No-one claims perfection for Tolkien, but it was a vital characteristic of his to meticulously write and re-write his stories, in order to remove as many inconsistencies as possible, and readers generally admire that as a quality special to him among writers.
PJ kept to Tolkien's story to a large extent, and when he did so, the films are a brilliant success; it is when he diverted from them, and got himself into a mess of contradictions of his own making, that the films lose track with the quality of the books.

Bucky · Jan 6, 2004

Let's face it, Tolkien hated cinema

Well, he didn't hate it enough to not sell the rights to TLOR to someone to make a MOVIE, did he?

And that, I'm afraid, gave him NO rights in saying anything about what they did with the story.

You can't take the money & then complain all the way to the bank.......

And, since Tolkien was always so concerned about 'respect for living authors', it's a moot point at this stage, isn't it?

nthman · Jan 6, 2004

JRRT would not have liked any film adaptations of his writings IMO. He probably should not have sold the film rights to pay off those back taxes he owed, but he did. The books in all honesty don't lend themselves to film very well at all in a way that would satisfy a purist.

Persephone · Jan 6, 2004

Gothmog said:
Narya. I do not have any problem with you. You posted about Then you cited the Weathertop battle as one of these things. I simply answered your point. Nothing more, Nothing less.

Had I decided to "Nit-Pick" my post would have been much longer and included such points as if Tolkien had such a poor understanding of filmmaking the points in his letter would not have included such observations as andBoth of which show that he was well aware of the types of changes that would be needed to adapt the book to film, and also the types of changes that would Not be needed.

I answered your post after reading the content, not the author.

Yes but you are missing one thing, that was what 28 years ago? Filmmaking has evolved dramatically since then. I am sorry, I just felt you were "attacking" me for not having the same views as you

or maybe I'm just paranoid. Anyway, he may know SOME things about filmmaking, but not all.

But I do agree that he knows some points of filmmaking - and I still believe that if he were alive today, he would have enjoyed watching the films - plus I think he would have a first hand say on what should have been done - and PJ would more than welcome his editions - making his films PERFECT.

Now, I am not saying that PJ has made a film that perfect that Tolkien will not disagree with some of his choices - however if Tolkien were alive today, he wouldn't have made those choices without consulting Tolkien.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

Narya said:
I agree. Besides, Tolkien is a WRITER, not a FILMAKER. There is an ocean of difference between the two arts. Though I believe Tolkien is a genius he does not have the knowledge and experience PJ has with filmaking, nor does he understand the craft at all. I've seen the cartoon feature he may be referring to and it doesn't come close to what PJ did. Plus Tolkien is not a perfect writer either. He made several mistakes and there are some things in the books that don't seem to coincide nor is rational.

Like that weathertop thing. In the book, Aragorn was able to fend off the ringwraiths all by himself - without a sword! How was he able to do that? Was he really that powerful?

Plus in the book, Sam put on the ring WHILE in Mordor, why didn't Sauron see him? he was right there in Cirith Ungol. Sauron must have detected him. But wasn't able to. Flaws, that are forgivable, I know, because as a whole the story is still staggering. So maybe we can let PJ off the hook as well.

there are a few flaws in the LotR text itself, but you haven't found two genuine flaws, here's why:

the ringwriath's power is tied to the power of sauron himself. they grow in power throughout the books, as does auron. if sauron were to acquire the ring, they would be absolutely beastly wreakers. during the encounter on weathertop, the nazgul are still relatively weak, compared to during book 5 when eowyn faces the with-king. they are relying on fear, and not real combative power at that point in time. since aragorn is strong enough in himself to overcome his fear of them, he can drive them back. consider glorfindel at the fords of bruinen. all nine fled from the sight of his face. obviously they weren't too powerful if they fled from the face of for all they know, just another elf.

sam does put on ther ring in cirith ungol, but he does not in mordor. cirith ungol is not within mordor in the strict sense. there is a qoute in the book after he rescues frodo and gives him back the ring in which this is clearly stated. it's at the beginning of book six. because cirith ungol was originally a fortress of gondor, and not of mordor, it does not fall within the bounds of his ancient realm.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

Gothmog said:
I find it strange that you have such a problem with the "weathertop thing"

No Aragorn is not that powerful and knew that himself.

So while the resistance of Aragorn and the Hobbits was unexpected it was not that which drove off the Wraiths but the fact that they had wounded Frodo with a Morgul Knife caused them to think there was no need to continue.

again, this is only part of the truth. read from weathertop onward. there is the point at which it states that they fled from the sight of glorfindel's face.

they did not expect to be resisted by someone who would not allow fear to consume him. aragorn conquered his own fear, and that is what gave him power over them. the morgul knife would have eventually forced frodo into the spirit world. they knew this as well as aragorn. delaying them, by forcing them not to use the main road was a good call on their part.

you have to remember that the end of book one is very intense when you begin to think about it. if no horse had not shown up, frodo likely would have passed into the spirit world before he reached bruinen. everything happened in the nick of time. this is also why frodo felt the pain of the wound forever afterwords. the blade had come so close to his heart.

also, there is some point at which strider does tell the hobbits that the wraith current weapon is fear. and that if they resist the fear, they will not be hurt by them.

i'll find the quotes if i have to.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

Elessar II said:
-K- said:

I believe Elessar II is wrong when he states that the number of things that PJ got right outnumber the number of things that he got wrong. I think this is because as you get more specific and/or thorough about what constitutes a 'thing', the number of things that went wrong increases far faster than the number of things he got right.[QUOTE/]

Well, I guess it depends on your point of view.
But you have to remember that this is cinema, and the amount of casual movie-goers and agreeable Tolkien readers far outnumbers the amount of purists and NPW. Sure, PJ could have done a better job in their view, but to the majority of LOTR audiences, judging from the billions of dollars in net revenue, I'd say that not everybody thinks PJ got the whole thing wrong!

BTW, Welcome to the forum -K-!

Click to expand...

thank you. i knew i shouldn't post. now i feel quite passionate about the thread which was an inevitability.

the movies are no doubt vastly popular. and from their outset, the goal was to introduce as many people as possible to the real story (the books). in that they have been successful, as the numbers at the bookstores show. they acheived their goal.

i think what the purists wanted to see was the movie translated to film with the end goal being putting as many the scenes that are close to our hearts in the books on the big screen. this would require an attention to accuracy that PJ simply did not show. nor did he need to in order to achieve his goal.

i would love to see another run of the movies with the goal of the purists in mind. but it will be a little while before that is possible.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

Bucky said:
Let's face it, Tolkien hated cinema

Well, he didn't hate it enough to not sell the rights to TLOR to someone to make a MOVIE, did he?

And that, I'm afraid, gave him NO rights in saying anything about what they did with the story.

You can't take the money & then complain all the way to the bank.......

And, since Tolkien was always so concerned about 'respect for living authors', it's a moot point at this stage, isn't it?

he may use a complaining tone. but he has every right to criticize the movies.

he did not know much about cinema, that is true. and thus, he could not criticize them on their movie-making techniques.

he did know what the story was really about. you can't argue against that. and if there is anyone who could tell whether or not the movie captured the essential elements of the story, he could. he is THE authority on how well the the things that were important were portrayed or not portrayed in the movies. the purists are simply using their knowledge and love of the books to defend this position. course we will never be as effective as tolkien at it.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

nthman said:
JRRT would not have liked any film adaptations of his writings IMO. He probably should not have sold the film rights to pay off those back taxes he owed, but he did. The books in all honesty don't lend themselves to film very well at all in a way that would satisfy a purist.

i disagree. have you ever listened to the BBC Book Tapes? this is the closest to a cinema adaptation of the books that any other medium can get.

the booktapes are nearly flawless. LISTEN TO THEM. i've ran through them many times when i didn't have the stamina to read the book again. i usually read the book once a year and listen to the tapes about 5 times a year. i do so because of their tremendous ACCURACY.

i have a friend who has listened to the booktapes and never read the book. he just doesn't have the attention span. nonetheless, he complains about exactly the same things i do in the movies. the booktapes are accurate enough that he pick up on little flaws in the movies such as the number of years until frodo left middle-earth.

listen to them, and if you don't accept them as proof that a really accurate movie COULD be made, then we will have a really interesting arguement.

-K- · Jan 6, 2004

Narya said:
Yes but you are missing one thing, that was what 28 years ago? Filmmaking has evolved dramatically since then. I am sorry, I just felt you were "attacking" me for not having the same views as you or maybe I'm just paranoid. Anyway, he may know SOME things about filmmaking, but not all.

But I do agree that he knows some points of filmmaking - and I still believe that if he were alive today, he would have enjoyed watching the films - plus I think he would have a first hand say on what should have been done - and PJ would more than welcome his editions - making his films PERFECT.

Now, I am not saying that PJ has made a film that perfect that Tolkien will not disagree with some of his choices - however if Tolkien were alive today, he wouldn't have made those choices without consulting Tolkien.

and now i will have completely arrested control of this thread. i apologize for my overzealous behaviour. i will nonetheless continue.

consulting tolkien, eh? PJ had some very valuable people to consult with when making the films. he had christopher tolkien. he the best consultant for such a project that you could ever have. also, he had christopher lee.

christopher tolkien is the next best thing to tolkien himself. he has access to all tolkien's unpublished materials, and has made it his life's work to sort through them. he knows more than ANYONE what tolkien was writing. he was supposed to be involved in the making of the movie. but was cut at some point anyways. PJ could have consulted with him.

also, there is cristopher lee, who plays saruman. apparently, as was i, he was not happy about the voice of saruman sequence being cut. he deemed it was integral to the story. PJ had an exellent consultant acting for him (as they did shoot the scene), and yet ignored him nonetheless.

this leads me to believe that even if tolkien was alive, PJ would not seriously consider ALL of his advice. if he will not acceot the advice of the next best people, he would not have accepted the advice of the man himself.

What Tolkien himself would have thought...

Stargazer

Well-Known Member

The Clark Kent of ME

The Dawson

New Member

Formerly known as Narya

Lord of Balrogs

Formerly known as Narya

Lord of Balrogs

The Clark Kent of ME

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Formerly known as Narya

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Share this page

Similar threads

Today's events

Similar threads

Search Wiki

Share this page

Most viewed threads of 2026