I'm pretty sure 'Accio ring' won't work for two reasons.
1. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on powerful magical items. Don't they trying to accio the Horcrux at Gringotts?
2. I can't recall anyone every successfully using that spell when the item it bound to the person. Say on his finger, when he's clutching a mace for example.
And I second Impediments question. Witch King isn't even in the fight....
Originally posted by Psychotron
Sauron? Weren't his feats just swinging his mace and dying?
Depends how you choose to look at it.
You could say Saurons feats were swinging his mace and dying.
The same light says Snapes feats were fighting children, killing an unarmed old man, and dying to a snake.
If you use feats alone, and only feats, then Yes, Snape's are better. If you choose to use all evidence from showings, words of others, and implications, Sauron is far stronger.
The whole of Middle Earth saw Saurons return as an Auto-Lose. There are reasons for this.
That's very circumstantial, though. Sauron was a threat he because he had huge, powerful armies, and was a skilled manipulator. There's nothing within the movies that imply that he himself, alone, could solo the world.
So really yes, his feats in combat are the only ones that matter. In that, it takes a sword across the finger to kill him. He did not show the ability to fly, teleport, shoot fireballs out of his ass, etc. Therefore none of those implications and word of mouth would help him in the slightest in a straight up fight.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's very circumstantial, though. Sauron was a threat he because he had huge, powerful armies, and was a skilled manipulator. There's nothing within the movies that imply that he himself, alone, could solo the world.So really yes, his feats in combat are the only ones that matter. In that, it takes a sword across the finger to kill him. He did not show the ability to fly, teleport, shoot fireballs out of his ass, etc. Therefore none of those implications and word of mouth would help him in the slightest in a straight up fight.
It's a point of view. If you choose to downplay it that's how it is when you do it to Snape.
And it's not as you say it is. Throughout the entire first movie it was heavily emphasized that if Sauron got the ring back it is essentially game over. That is significantly different from dark days ahead to certain defeat. It's not that he can solo the world, but that his army is defeat-able, with him, that looks not to be the case.
No, but he was known to be far more powerful than Gandalf or the Witch King. It's really unlikely to my mind that most any wizard could defeat Sauron. Wasn't he called The Great Necromancer in the hobbit?
Suit yourself though. If you can't convinced and you think Snape can beat the guy most all 'Dark Lords' are based on, on your own head =3
Originally posted by EvilAngelDownplaying is looking at something someone's done and making excuses for why its not impressive. I haven't done any such thing.
[B]It's a point of view. If you choose to downplay it that's how it is when you do it to Snape.
And it's not as you say it is. Throughout the entire first movie it was heavily emphasized that if Sauron got the ring back it is essentially game over.I'll explain why that is below:
It's not that he can solo the world, but that his army is defeat-able, with him, that looks not to be the case.
You have it backwards. According to what the movies themselves show us, Sauron's army is undefeatable. Even after narrowly routing Saruman's army at Helms Deep, even after narrowly routing Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, Sauron's army still had a nigh infinite number of troops, whereas the men of the west had been decimated. Simply put, there was no way to permanently put his army down. It didn't matter how many fights the humans won, Sauron always had more orcs and more trolls to keep up the pressure. Hence, destroying the ring was the only possible way to put him down for good. That's why not letting him get the ring was so important. It wasn't a matter so much of him becoming a demi-god if he got it. It was a matter of humanity not having any other way of killing him, if he got the ring. They didn't have the man power to replicate another battle of the Last Alliance.
No, but he was known to be far more powerful than Gandalf or the Witch King. It's really unlikely to my mind that most any wizard could defeat Sauron. Wasn't he called The Great Necromancer in the hobbit?That's 'cause you're a fangirl who likes to use circumstantial evidence... which isn't really evidence at all. uhuh
Suit yourself though. If you can't convinced and you think Snape can beat the guy most all 'Dark Lords' are based on, on your own head =3
I want you to convince.
It's just... I want you to do it using facts, not hearsay that have no objective interpretations. 🙁
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Downplaying is looking at something someone's done and making excuses for why its not impressive. I haven't done any such thing.
No, you haven't, but the line i quoted is an example of downplay.
'swinging his mace' - when yes this is true but it fails to mention it is down with enough force to send a half dozen men flying with each 'swing'
It also ignores anything Sauron did before the events of the movies. He was fighting and conquoring long before That last alliance came together. He was also called Sauron the Deceiver, presumably for a reason...
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You have it backwards. According to what the movies themselves show us, Sauron's army is undefeatable. Even after narrowly routing Saruman's army at Helms Deep, even after narrowly routing Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, Sauron's army still had a nigh infinite number of troops, whereas the men of the west had been decimated. Simply put, there was no way to permanently put his army down. It didn't matter how many fights the humans won, Sauron always had more orcs and more trolls to keep up the pressure. Hence, destroying the ring was the only possible way to put him down for good. That's why not letting him get the ring was so important. It wasn't a matter so much of him becoming a demi-god if he got it. It was a matter of humanity not having any other way of killing him, if he got the ring. They didn't have the man power to replicate another battle of the Last Alliance.
If that's the case then the ring is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things* and there's no way they would have summoned all the lords of all the peoples of middle earth, who used they're very best men on what was a Suicide mission to destroy it.
If that is the case then Aragorn would never have lead the survivors of the horrors of war on yet another suicide mission just to buy Frodo time. He liked Frodo that's true, but there's nothing supporting the theory he weighed Frodo's life over all those he lead to the Black Gate.
I see your reasoning but you must realize how much you are ignoring for what you're trying to claim to make sense.
*Assuming they didn't actually realise it would destroy mordor entirely.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanI have a weakness for implied stuff this is true... but so's your face! (?)
That's 'cause you're a fangirl who likes to use circumstantial evidence... which isn't really evidence at all. [csm]uhuh[/csmp
Eh, the focus of the films is about destroying the ring to prevent Saurons return. Apparently that's pretty important if it's the focus of 3 books, and the best selling novel of all time dude ;p
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I want you to convince.It's just... I want you to do it using facts, not hearsay that have no objective interpretations. 🙁
Most people i find have already made up their minds about such topics the moment they read the title. Even circumstances seldom changes an opinion. But I'll play along for awhile. If only due to the sheer insult to Sauron that Snape could kill him... 😛