In the many decades since it was first published, The Lord of the Rings has remained one of
the world's most popular novel series, and Peter Jackson's iconic movie trilogy has only
made the story endure that much longer.
Being so popular, of course, you're bound to get a few crazy fan theories thrown into
the mix, too.
Here are a few of the Lord of the Rings theories that, if true, would turn the whole of Middle-Earth
on its head.
Even casual Tolkien fans will have heard of one of the story's most notorious criticisms,
to keep it short: why didn't the Fellowship just use the eagles to fly to Mount Doom and
destroy the ring?
On the surface, it seems like a fair question to ask, and there are plenty of perfectly
reasonable answers to it, too.
But one fan theory in particular goes beyond just explaining why the eagles weren't up
for the task: it actually suggests that using them as transport was the plan all along.
This theory suggests that, after being saved by the eagles from his imprisonment on top
of Orthanc, Gandalf decides that this winged transportation is surely the best way to catch
Sauron by surprise and destroy the ring.
The crux of this theory rests on the suggestion that, when Gandalf the Grey engages in combat
with the Balrog, his now-iconic final line should be taken literally.
"Fly, you fools."
The idea is that he's not just telling his companions to get out of Moria, he's trying
to communicate his plan to use the eagles to reach Mordor.
Of course, this doesn't work, and by the time he returns as Gandalf the White, he's got
a whole new agenda to pursue.
Of course, Gandalf could also have just been telling the Fellowship to quit their dawdling
and get the heck out of dodge.
Just go with whatever works for you.
Smeagol is one of the most pitiful characters from The Lord of the Rings, and, in a way,
one of the most lovable, too.
Anyone with a heart should be able to feel for the poor wretch as he struggles with his
centuries-long obsession with a powerful force beyond his own comprehension.
Then, of course, there's Gollum, the other side of his "split personality" in the films.
Gollum basically represents all the bad stuff.
He's hateful, violent, and willing to stop at nothing to get hold of his precious ring.
While most people generally accept that these two characters make up a kind of multiple
personality disorder on Smeagol's part, one fan theory suggests a wholly different take.
Rather than simply writing off Gollum as Smeagol's evil side, this theory goes out on a limb
and claims that "Gollum" is a legitimate personality all its own, that stems from within the One
Ring itself.
This theory rests on the fact that, when Bilbo has possession of the ring, he acts very similarly
to Smeagol's Gollum personality.
Towards the end of the story, Frodo begins to act this way, too.
In short, anyone tempted by the ring, and not just Smeagol, can exhibit snippets of
this identity, and upon giving into the ring's dominance, would themselves be completely
consumed by it.
It would have happened to Bilbo, it almost happened to Frodo…and it'd probably happen
to you, too.
During the opening chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring, it's revealed that Frodo's parents
drowned in a boating incident.
While this was officially an accident, darker rumors suggested that his mother actually
tried to push his father into the water, and he pulled her in with him.
Accident or not, that was the story as far as everyone knew it…until now.
According to one Reddit fan theory, the given story of this so-called accident is actually
a misdirect.
Instead, the theory proposes that it was none other than Gollum himself who killed his future
master's parents as they coasted along the water after dinner in the moonlight.
While the poster admits that the coincidence would've been a stretch, they do make some
solid arguments for the theory.
For one thing, Gollum was searching around for his lost ring at the time of Frodo's parents'
deaths, still looking for Bilbo Baggins of the Shire.
Frodo's father was named Drogo Baggins, so who's to say the villainous creature didn't
simply bump off the first Baggins he ran across?
Unable to find the ring on Drogo's body, Gollum could have then headed south, drawn towards
the One Ring's master.
While it takes a little stretching to fit with Tolkien's narrative, this theory does
throw up the tantalizing prospect of a version of the story in which Frodo discovers that
the creature who benefited so frequently from his mercy actually killed his own parents.
Okay, so this theory is kind of a twofer.
Let's start with the more clear-cut one: that Tolkien included cannibalism in his trilogy.
More specifically, the idea that Grima Wormtongue ate hobbit flesh.
During the "Scouring of the Shire" chapter in The Return of the King, Saruman reveals
that his lackey Wormtongue killed Frodo's corrupt relative Lotho.
During this scene, the fallen wizard states:
"Worm killed your Chief…Stabbed him in his sleep, I believe.
Buried, him, I hope; though Worm has been very hungry lately."
And it's that last little zinger that has led many to question if Wormtongue actually
straight-up ate Lotho's body in an attempt to stave off his extreme hunger.
If he did, this kind of mistreatment on Saruman's part would go a long way in explaining what
pushed Wormtongue into finally snapping and killing his master.
Cannibalism aside, however, another theory suggests the idea that Saruman's mistreatment
of Wormtongue wasn't just turning him into the pale, decrepit wretch that he became,
it was actually transforming him into an orc.
In other words, after creating his hybrid Uruk-hai earlier in the story, it's possible
that Saruman was experimenting once more, this time with warping a man into an entirely
new breed of orc.
It's a chilling thought that could've had drastic repercussions for Middle-Earth…if
Wormtongue hadn't been killed before the transition could fully take place.
Here's another Wormtongue theory, though this one is at least a little less grotesque.
This theory has to do with the rings of power, but not the ones you'll have encountered before;
instead, it tackles the idea that Saruman might have attempted to craft rings of his
own.
After all, Saruman emulated the Dark Lord in most of the things that he did.
So why not make rings of his own, too?
There are multiple instances in the trilogy where it's suggested that Saruman has an interest
in the other rings of power.
When Gandalf tells the story of his captivity at the Council of Elrond, for instance, he
specifically points out that he'd noticed that Saruman was wearing a ring.
On top of that, when Saruman announces his treachery to Gandalf, he refers to himself
as "Saruman Ring-maker."
If you can assume from these hints that Saruman was busy making his own ring, then why would
he stop at making one for himself?
Wouldn't he want to take after Sauron and create other rings to use as a tool for the
domination of others, the same way Sauron took control of the Nazgul?
What's more, this theory suggests that none other than Grima Wormtongue is in possession
of one of Saruman's rings, forcing him to serve his wizardly master without question
until the very end.
Fans of the Lord of the Rings books will be very familiar with Tom Bombadil.
This enigma of a character is a mysterious and unspeakably powerful being that lives
out in the Old Forest, just beyond the edge of the Shire.
Now, Tom has no interest in the affairs of outsiders or the war going on in Middle-Earth…well,
that's what he says, at least.
One theory, however, suggests that Tom Bombadil is none other than the Witch King himself.
Okay, don't laugh too hard before you hear at least a few of the arguments in favor of
this theory.
For instance, when the hobbits run into the merry old fellow in The Fellowship of the
Ring, Tom has a noticeable glint in his eye when the Black Riders are mentioned.
And then there's the fact that he can see Frodo clearly when the hobbit is wearing the
One Ring, just like the Witch King at Weathertop.
And when Tom puts the magical piece of jewelry on his own finger?
It has no effect on him, much in the same way that it wouldn't have any effect on a
true servant of Sauron, either.
Of course, if by some crazy happenstance this theory were to be true, it would mean Frodo
was saved and looked after by the Witch King for a considerable chunk of time, which, all
things considered, seems…unlikely.
Early on in The Two Towers, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli chase a troop of orcs and Uruk-hai
that have captured their hobbit friends, Merry and Pippin.
Eventually, they discover their enemies have been destroyed, and the hobbits are missing.
As they prepare to head into the forest of Fangorn to search for them, they run into
an interesting character, in the book, at least.
As they sit, resting by a fire in the dark, they suddenly spot:
"...an old bent man, leaning on a staff, and wrapped in a great cloak, with his wide-brimmed
hat…pulled down over his eyes."
Before the trio can react, the man disappears without a trace.
When they meet Gandalf shortly afterward, he clarifies that it wasn't him, and so it
must've been Saruman.
However, one theory suggests that it was none other than Radagast the Brown.
The giveaway?
There's little to no proof anywhere that Saruman ever wears a hat.
The Brown Wizard, on the other hand, frequently does.
Radagast plays a significant part in The Hobbit trilogy and makes a brief appearance in the
book version of Fellowship of the Ring.
But if this theory is true, it would indicate that Radagast was more active during the War
of the Ring than anyone could have guessed.
It's strange to think of three hairs as particularly enticing, but in The Fellowship of the Ring,
that's all Gimli asks for when Galadriel offers him a parting gift.
On the surface, this present seems cute enough, if a little odd.
But Gimli isn't the first person to want in on Galadriel's golden tresses.
Way back in the First Age, the elf-lord Feanor requested a strand of hair from Galadriel
three times.
It was often said by the elves that the light of the lost Two Trees of Valinor had endured
in Galadriel's hair, and this saying inspired Feanor to create the legendary jewels known
as the Silmarils.
But Feanor was turned down repeatedly, and never got his hands on even a single strand
of Galadriel's hair.
For her to then bestow three hairs on Gimli is a seriously big deal, especially since
Gimli is a dwarf, part of a race that doesn't exactly get along well with the elves.
"Never trust an elf!"
All of this has inspired a theory that the three hairs are actually the great opening
gesture in an act of diplomacy, peace, and reconciliation between the two races.
The fact that Galadriel decides that he's more worthy of this gift than one of the greatest
elf lords who's ever lived is one heck of a statement.
And if Gimli eventually managed to set the three golden hairs in imperishable crystal,
as he claimed, it may have ultimately precipitated a lasting peace between elves and dwarves.
For all its faults, The Hobbit trilogy could be pretty fun.
It was exciting, too, some of the time, and you can't say it wasn't colorful.
But let's be honest: it was also a bit of a train wreck.
But for all of its overstuffed storylines, lengthy battle scenes, and ridiculous CGI,
one brilliant theorist has suggested an explanation that fixes the entire fiasco with a clever
twist: It's all a tall tale from Bilbo's perspective.
See, over the course of his life, Bilbo develops something of a love for storytelling.
"And turned them all to stone!"
And he's not afraid of embellishing these stories from time to time, either.
At the Council of Elrond, when asked to tell his story, he has to start with the caveat
that it's actually the true story, saying:
"If some have heard me tell it otherwise…I ask them to forget it and forgive me."
In short, Bilbo loves to exaggerate his stories, and The Hobbit films are actually a depiction
of Tolkien's classic novel from Mr. Baggins' own perspective.
Talk about a useful cop-out.
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Looper videos about your favorite movies are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.