Peter Jackson Changes to The Lord of the Rings that Make NO Sense, Part 1 

this was one point I never understood about the movies, I understood however that the books intended what they did.

You could interpret “the age of men is over” as meaning that mankind would be enslaved rather than being free to choose their own path.

​@@killgriffinnow Yes, a very obvious solution to this fabricated issue

@@killgriffinnow the third movie makes a point of having that mutant orc general guy declaring that it's now "the age of the orc"...

@@TheDarthbinkyright, but again, one could interpret as simply orcs being at the top of the hierarchy, not that literally every man, woman, and child will be exterminated

Yeah. I mean Elrond is not so strange from elf-man marriage and its reasons and consequences. He knows that these happen mostly for some high purpose of doom (as Finrod wisely said) and I think he knows deep down it is his duty to sacrifice his love for his daughter (in some sense), to have the line of his brother usher the age of men. And I like the point that in the books, Elrond is still very loving of Aragorn and supports him.

I believe Elrond is to represent the whole of the Elf race when we first see him in the movies. Apart from a brief encounter with Arwen the viewer have not seen or heard any elf yet. When Elrond gets his screen time he need to lay down a baseline on elf demeanor and general attitudes. Even if Elrond possibly is the elf most open minded towards men, elf's in general are not, especially during this point in time, and that needs to be communicated to the viewer. To make Elrond do it is logical from a motion picture perspective, to introduce another Elf just for this would be awkward imo.

How did the movies portray Isildur badly? He defeated Sauron, and he is corrupted by the ring the same way Frodo was.

@SuperAlfern he gives into the ring way more easily and Galadriel’s voice over even says the hearts of men are easily corrupted. Unlike in the book there’s no indication he has any legitimate motive and the movie makes it seem like it was obviously necessary to destroy the ring.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Oh ok.

All that scene was nonsensical. And I wonder if ever Frodo was in Osgiliath.

@@morriganmhor5078 In his journey to Mt.Doom, no. He and Sam never went to Osgiliath in the book. They were escorted from Henneth Annun to the crossroads so they could head to Cirith Ungol.

@@bobo577 Thanks. I just wasn´t in the mood to look in the books proper.

@@morriganmhor5078 No problem.

The whole strategy of making Sauron believe that Aragorn has seized the Ring falls apart because of this! The Nazgul would have snatched Frodo up right then and there and whisked him off to Sauron. Game over.

Examples?

@@Richard_Nickerson There were multiple examples given in the video. That not enough for you?

@@istari0 You're just going to blindly point to the video as YOUR examples? No, it's not good enough. I've made several comments detailing why I think so already elsewhere. I disagree that what people call plot holes are actually plot holes, for the most part. And you think you can state something and don't need to back it up?

@@istari0 Name an actual plot hole

@@istari0 LOL! I love how this guy asks for examples, and you point out this whole video is the examples and yet he continues to argue with you. Some people are really, really dense!

There is a vital difference between PJ and the RoP, however. The Rings of Power people explicitly stated over and over again that they hated Tolkien's works and wanted to change them for activist/ideological reasons. Peter Jackson, meanwhile, repeatedly stated that he "didn't want to bring any of our own baggage" into the Lord of the Rings movies. His *intention* was to make a faithful adaptation, and the changes he made, rightly or wrongly, were made for the sake of adapting the books to the screen. How well he *succeeded* in his stated goal can be debated endlessly. He, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens certainly made changes which I think were unnecessary. But they also backed off many other (worse) changes, such as having Arwen at Helm's Deep. Whatever their missteps, Peter Jackson and his crew genuinely loved and respected the source material. And even though I think they often did not understand the source material, their love and respect came through on screen. The Rings of Power people *despise* Tolkien's works and world, and their hatred and disdain came through *very* clearly. Film Aragorn, however different from Book Aragorn, is still unquestionably a *hero.* Not only a hero, he is *competent* and his character arc (mostly) makes sense. He is sympathetic, noble, and admirable. RoP's Galadriel is none of those things. PJ's mistakes were honest mistakes. The Rings of Power crew *set out purposefully and intentionally* to desecrate the work of Tolkien. That is the vital difference between the two.

The books are great, but to act like everything in them MUST be included, is dumb. The movies would have ended up being 15 hours each.

@earlofbroadst You’re a Peter Jackson fan not a Tolkien fan. There’s no difference between what Jackson did with the hobbit and lesser extent LOTR and the ROP, the hobbit is a total desecration of the book, Christopher Tolkien himself called the lord of the rings film mindless action films for children.! The professor would have hated the lord of the rings movies. To pretend otherwise is farcical

@earlofbroadst Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens *showed* contempt for the book. They degraded almost every character, particularly Frodo, Faramir, Denethor and Gandalf the White. Film Aragorn murders an emissary during parley. Film Theoden tries to kill Grima, and is stopped in front of his people by Aragorn. Film Frodo sends Sam home. Film Gandalf has his staff broken by the Witch-King. Walsh and/or Boyens called Tolkien an “amateur writer”. Boyens said Tolkien needed an editor. She also boasted that they did Boromir’s death better, calling his death in the book a “failing of Tolkien”.

​@earlofbroadst You don't have a clue what you are talking about 🤣 Those behind the making of rings of power never stated that they hated Tolkien's works. That's just something which was made up and you have chosen to falsely run with it as fact despite it not being true. You might not like this but rings of power was given the blessing of the Tolkien estate. Also as one of the commenters on here very accurately stated, you aren't a Tolkien fan but a Peter Jackson fan. I can assure you of this. If you read the Lord of the Rings books and go back and watch the movies, I can assure you Peter Jackson and his team made lots of changes which made a complete mockery of the books.

They didn't get rescued by the Elves. Simply re-enforced because the Elves wanted to help, for all the good it did. The goal was to make it to first light on the third day, giving Gandalf enough time to find the riders of Rohan. The Elves and Gandalf helped, but it was still a battle carried and won by men and they didn't show weakness. King Theoden despaired at the fact that it look like they were losing but his exhaustion was passing and he was emboldened by Aragorn to ride out in the middle of the carnage and face them rather than simply hide and let them be overrun in chambers.

Dwarf songs by Taylor Swift...

Disney would have summed up the entire story in at most 100 minutes.

We already know that. Gandalf says that he would not go through the mines, unless he had no other choice. How long should they harped on it. Its a movie, it needs to keep the action steady.

Examples?

@@Richard_Nickerson The introduction of the Hobbits and their lives in the extended version is great, also Sarumans death. But maybe that doesnt count since its only in the extended version.

@@SuperAlfern Not an answer. Which changes could have been different to be better? You're also not the person I asked, so...

@@Richard_Nickerson Ok.

Sure, but “I am ready to go home” takes it a bit too far lol

Because then it wouldnt make sense. Why would they go there if they knew. And even if they knew, they would have to go there anyway? Wouldnt they?

Good luck with that. The entire industry is built on adaptations of books. Universal Monsters, LOTR, Harry Potter, Disney movies, etc.

@@TheMan05555 Evil(Hollywood) cannot create, it can only corrupt.

I never said all the changes made were bad.

He’s made several videos where he actually praises LOTR

Their main goal was to get the Ring. I’m not sure this really creates a coherence issue. Plus it’s mildly excusable as a homage to Bakshi anyway lol.

Filmamir is handled poorly in ‘The Two Towers,’ but I thought ‘The Return of the King’ redeemed him a little. As for Denethor II, Peter Jackson gutted him.

Thanks To interesting video. I see the discussion of Gabdalf and Elrond litle bit differentiaali Angel. I think that it is inteoduction of the problem. Expecially becouse the potreyal of the concil itself. It is guite sort. The discussion beforhand makes situation litle bit clearer ti wiever becouse it tels that the Canot leveys To Rivendel.

So the question In the consil is: What To do the ring as In the bok Elrond say In the begining of the concil.

I understand what you are try To say and I am agree. But where Canon be the other explanation. The counsil itsellenikin as Tolkien potrays it In the bok is guite Hard To put To film because it is just talkin many hours as Pippin says In rhe begining of the next charter. It would do be nice To In the film but I think that it would be quite Boeing for many moviegoers afterall. I don't know but guess.

😅

Not really. In the book at Bag’s End Frodo’s life had just been completely pulled on its head: he had just heard that he carried an ancient priceless artifact of a dark lord who thanks to Sméagol knew it was in the Shire. In the films Frodo wishes Sméagol dead after he has already volunteered to take the Ring to Mordor.

In the book or the movie?

Yep. Apparently not together though, and it’s not clear Aragorn went through or how far he went.

😂

I think the movie isn’t showing all events in chronological order.

@@TolkienLorePodcastI guess that’s the explanation of how Elrond got to a halfway point between Rohan and Gondor to give Aragorn Aunduil, even though Aragorn always had it in the books.

@@TolkienLorePodcastthe documentary actually shows them how they did this. They showed how the books and movies lined up where several events were happening sort of simultaneously where they showed which parts in the movie were happening simultaneously in different lands etc. it was cool

Gimli impression. Davies has a regular English accent.

But sadly Denethor was never clouded or whipped by Sauron. - Denethor was done dirty: He was way more noble & mighty in the books. Not to mention he contended wills with Sauron for decades nonstop & ontop of that even now he was never broken nor could Sauron alter what Denethor would see in the palantir even then he couldn’t control what Denethor had control of which was how he CHOSE to INTERPRET the visions given to him. Using it all to Gondor’s advantage! ❤ he also lit the beacons and got the women & children far away from the city longer ahead of time. So the movie butchered him as well as faramir but they didn’t butcher faramir as badly thankfully. He could have been shown to give Pippen his newest order to light the beacons so then it wouldn’t change the scene much at all as presented! The story here is Faramir’s birth ended up killing his mother Finduilas(named after an elvish princess from the era of Children Of Hùrin was set in);she was a Numenorean woman of the Faithful which her ancestors survived the Cataclysm of Númenor by the way! He was hurt deeply by her death and ontop of that Faramir had the likeness both in temperament as well as his appearance/bearing so he ways reminded of his wife over and over again by Faramir who was just like her, and all it took was a simple look or what-have-you to drive the knife in deeper into his heart about his wife. But also Aragorn when he went by the name gifted to him as Thorongil Denethor’s father basically overshadowing him from his own father so he is as psychology goes: treated Boromir the same way his father treated Aragorn/Thorongil. Note that Boromir and Faramir are half Númenorean which is a big thing as far as the legendarium goes! And it’s something to note that he treated Boromir like his father treated the clandestine Aragorn as Thorongil. Denethor actually did many things the movie shows him not doing or neglecting. He was VERY competent and mighty in many craft and (even a lore-master to a degree). He had quite alot of mental and “magical” might which is why he could contend with Sauron too without being harmed in there process in any way!

That’s possible in theory IF as a first time viewer you somehow already know that but the reactions of Gimli and Legolas lead you to think it’s much more recent.

I figured the 2nd part was just the movie trying to set up Elrond as racist to humans in order to create drama over his daughter.

@@vileluca I don't think Elrond was racist towards anyone. He could be suspicious and constantly on his guard, but no more than anyone else in those dark times. Besides, having virtually raised Aragorn and being half-human himself, how could he be racist towards men?? It's frustration and anxiety I see in him, not racism. The whole "drama over daughter" broke out because he was naturally upset by Arwen's rejection of immortality. Any loving father would react the same way if their child chose death over living.

There’s no indication Elrond was somehow magically aware of the Ring’s properties, and no reason to think he would be. And even by your own logic about his comments regarding men, elves were in the exact same boat.

@@SilhouetteSE It's not really made clear in the movies that Elrond was nearly half human, but I don't quite see it as racism but more as dig at Movie Aragorn himself, who is shown as full of doubts etc and no clearly defined sense of destiny. In the books Elrond foresees that Arwen will not be wed to any lesser man than the King of Gondor, so he's basically saying to young Aragorn that he'd better up his game so he can deserve her. That would have been such a better motivating factor than the nonsensical "Arwen is dying" because her fate is tied to that of the Ring! How? Why? It's not explained.

@@TolkienLorePodcast I was only making a guess that Elrond COULD'VE known. If he hadn't, then how do you explain his instructions to Isildur? Just curious. As for elves and men - yes, neither race was looking too good at the time. The age of the elves was over, of which Elrond was woefully aware. His comment about men being scattered came only as a response to Gandalf who said that it's in men they had to place their hope.

He's talking about inconsistencies within the movies, not just differences from the books. The absence of Tom Bombadil, for instance, is obvious - he doesn't propel the plot forward. Streamlining has to happen when adapting for the screen, and omitting such characters or combining them is commonly done.

@@mouseketeery Nothing had to happen to change the story - if the story is too difficult to adapt without major changes, then better to not make the adaptation at all.

They might think that if they discovered Frodo went back there.

Any particular one you had in mind?

Yes, but massively extensive cobwebs? That seems a bit much

Like wouldn't the Naz gul tell saurom that the ring probably isn't there anymore

Gandalf already told Frodo Sauron had birds and beasts as spies so what’s the likelihood you’d make it back in secret?

@@TolkienLorePodcast some hobbits without a ring of power can't be that high of a priority for the lord of darkness? But I trust your judgement, you are the Tolkien geek after all

But how would he know he didn’t have the Ring?

@@TolkienLorePodcast now we're in to speculation but would the council of Elrond send the ring back to the place they just got it out of? I think we're both reading to much in to this haha

Saruman literally says “you know what they awoke in the darkness” in the movie. That’s far more than a hint. Also warning them of the danger should make them all more cautious and quiet, not panic and give themselves away.

There’s not one on the map, so how would they even know where to look? Also Tolkien did write somewhere that Mt. Doom was infused with the power of Morgoth or something like that so it probably did have to be that volcano. Especially since if it was just heat then a Dwarven forge would have sufficed.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Good points, I never saw the quote about Mt Doom infused with power of Morgoth. Thanks for that.

I think Morgoth created Orodruin some time in the First Age, so it would definitely be infused with an extra portion of Morgoth's Ring.

But how would he know Frodo didn’t have it?

No, I think you’re right that he didn’t know. But that’s my point-they changed that for the movie and that creates problems.

There’s a couple songs in the Hobbit movies but not a lot

Thanks @@TolkienLorePodcast

Lots of poems and songs. watch “how Howard shore uses voices”

@@Makkaru112 Oh I see. It's in the foreign tongues heard in the music.

Based on the history of adaptations we have gotten these are the higher end quality in terms of accuracy, production etc. the main reason why I say this is because most other books other than stuff like princess bride, last unicorn, and a few others, most adaptions are very different. Sometimes this is a good thing in regards to the sword of truth series vs legend of the seeker where the show is a lot better than the books because the books are really terrible. Lord of the rings occupies a sweet spot where it does make changes but most of the events are the same, the characters are mostly the same with a couple deviations. It could also be that I’m not very attached to the book versions of the story and just roll with a lot of the changes. Like I’ve always liked movie boromir better than book boromir, same with Aragorn, and I do enjoy discussions about the changes but I just still like them better in the films because they’re well portrayed

Level of accuracy isn’t really my complaint here, it’s the incoherence introduced by the change. As I noted in the video each change has a dramatic purpose, it’s just they weren’t sufficiently thought through.

@@TolkienLorePodcast I understand, my point was a tangent that I found curious was all

How is there a problem in the book? At the Council everyone is well aware the Dwarves are likely dead.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Maybe it's just been too long since I've read the book. But the fact remains that communication with Balin's colony had been broken for several decades without it being investigated.

@otaku-sempai2197 how is that a problem? But even it is that’s not necessarily true. Balin left for Moria “well nigh thirty years ago” but “for a while” they had news from him, so it’s not clear when the colony was destroyed.

@@TolkienLorePodcast We know approximately when the Dwarves lost contact with the Moria colony (in the book). Balin established the colony in T.A. 2989; the end came in 2994, five years later. Either Balin was too proud to ask for help until it was too late, or any messengers sent to get aid were intercepted and killed.

@otaku-sempai2197 but again, how is this a problem?

Changing a character's traits isn't on the same level as (at least most of) these. These are things that don't make sense for being inter-story inconsistencies. Like that there was some actual grievance from a story telling perspective, not from being an adaption.

How doesn't it make sense?

@@Richard_Nickerson just the logic of the dead bodies and time needed for that to happen.

@@George-zj9rr How long do you think it takes? Seriously. Because I guarantee it's much less time than you're thinking. Go google it instead of assuming. Make sure you're not looking at ideal conditions or burial conditions or anything. I'll wait.

Because they were made before RU-vid was a thing 😂

In the movie, I think it was implied that the crows told Saruman where the fellowship were (the ones that flew over them on the rocky hillside). So Saruman had a good guess as to what the plan was. How he knew the exact moment to ‘make’ the storm is another question…!

@@David.Bowman. ​ Indeed, when Pippin and Merry are "training" with Boromir and the crebain fly by. Also, Saruman does a voiceover where he says he knows that there's only really two ways they could go - Moria (and he knows that Gandalf is aware of the Balrog there, as TG mentions) or Caradhras. As for Saruman knowing what's happening... remember, Gandalf told him everything. Saruman knows the entire plot up to Frodo getting to Rivendell... because Gandalf told him (and because he's got a palantir). He knows that a hobbit has the ring, and once the crebain report back that Gandalf is wandering east with some hobbits and a handful of other people, Saruman knows enough and is smart enough to make an educated guess about what is happening.

Palantir + Crebain

It's as if half the comments haven't even actually watched the movies... WTF do you think the crebain crows scene was even for? What's the point of showing Saruman have a Palantír if we're just going to ignore its existence and purpose? And why would he have to know that the Fellowship is actively on that mountain pass for his storm to be effective at stopping them? Think about how it happens in the book... maybe movie Saruman thought he was just making it impossible to pass and wasn't actively attacking them... Changes from book to movie are 100% necessary and will never appease 100% of audiences... This is why I hate interacting with fandoms, especially ones I actually enjoy. Too many of you do not actually use your brains. You just go "durr book change bad" and don't look at the context whatsoever. You've basically proven that you haven't even paid attention to FotR.

@@Richard_Nickerson Because the storm came exactly in the worst time and place without any crebain at guard? What did Saruman know about their march speed?

I feel like you completely missed my point on this one.

The point is that Frodo knows that Sauron has learned of his (Frodo’s) name, as well as the location of The Shire, and that therefore Frodo must understand he cannot return home. Frodo says “the ring will be safe here,” as if he doesn’t know full well that it is HE who is the target. While it makes sense that Frodo should like to go home, it makes no sense that he’d believe he could do so at this point.

This is an example of a change that remains consistent within the movies though. This is quite literally simply not one of the kinds of changes he's talking about. He literally explains as much at the beginning of the video. This is a petty nitpick.

​@@Richard_Nickerson I understand why they removed a character that appears for one scene, but I don't like the fact that Arwen in particular is the one replacing him. With how much Elrond cares about his daughter in later scenes, he would never allow her to nearly kill herself multiple times while running from the Nazgul. I think Legolas would have been a much better replacement (although I still would prefer for them to keep Glorfindel)

@@rafexrafexowski4754 Who tf said Elrond allowed it? Why complain about something you're only assuming to be true? Edit: Also, Legolas literally hadn't arrived yet. He's not from Rivendell, he wouldn't be doing their bidding. We watch him arrive *after* this event. Terrible suggestion for a substitute.

@@Richard_Nickerson Taking something to its logical conclusion is not an assumption. One more reason why Arwen's role in saving Frodo does not make sense from a narrative perspective either: Eowyn is meant to be special, the only woman determined enough to face the enemy head on in a society in which armies consist purely of men. Adding a warrior girlboss is against what makes Eowyn's character arc as impactful as it is. As for my Legolas suggestion, remember that we are making an adaptation, so we can change things as long as they are internally contistent. We could make Legolas arrive in Rivendell a few days later and volunteer to go for example. And Legolas being the one to save Frodo makes the most sense from a narrative perspective if we are to get rid of Glorfindel.

@@rafexrafexowski4754 Legolas does replace Glorfindel in the Bakshi adaptation. That's how Legolas became blond!

On rare occasions lol

You need to reread it because your characterization doesn’t match what Gandalf actually says.

@kevinsiragusa8399 Théoden is not under Saruman's spell. The evil already at work in the land was "the lies of Saruman", no spell except the ordinary sort that a cunning wordsmith can weave. Gandalf learns through Gwaihir rumours of Rohan paying tribute to Sauron in horses, but not as yet being under the yoke. When he arrives he finds Théoden does not believe Gandalf's warnings, being more hostile to him than he might have been in the past, and lets him have a horse purely to get rid of him. He is not pleased with Gandalf taking Shadowfax, but wants him gone from Rohan more than anything. Though we aren't privy to the conversation, Théoden probably spouts some nonsense that Gandalf recognises as coming from Saruman, and does not at this point have the persuasive power necessary to sway Théoden away from a web of carefully crafted deceit. Boromir, you'll note, vouches for the Rohirrim at the Council. When the narrative actually gets to Rohan in TTT we are given a more accurate picture. It's worth noting that in neither books nor films is Rohan ever in league with Isengard. Théoden is made impotent as a leader, he is not a minion of Saruman. Are there errors and inconsistencies in the books? Of course. I know of at least one list with fans having fun trying to come up with in-world explanations for clear discrepancies. This is not one of them. You are meant to be unsure what side Rohan is on during the Council. The spell business however is film events encroaching on the source material.

Is…that a joke?

@@TolkienLorePodcast far from it.

@charliejackson5492 give me one example. Because I have a whole video on stuff Jackson did which would have been better if he just stuck to the book.

Re your first paragraph, I’d be inclined to agree. But at the same time, what he’s (attempting) to do is to show inconsistencies within the movie narrative itself (that have arisen from deviation from the books). And while some of these things may be overlooked by a first-time viewer, upon retrospect they become irksome. I’d also say that dramatic tension isn’t necessarily a problem in the way he mentions - just because we the audience know (or guess) how the story might unfold, doesn’t mean the character can’t be faced with the uncertainty - provided it’s done well. But the problem of Gandalf not wanting to go through the mines (but not explaining why) vs. Gimli wanting to see his kin (only to find them LONG dead) is a glaring one. The obvious change (without going into a full exposition of the situation) is for Gandalf to give some explanation; eg: “I fear they might have been overtaken by some evil”, and for Gimli to be less confident and acknowledge the fact that they lost contact with the mines some years ago. Just an extra minute or two of dialogue would clear the issue up. (An even better solution, of course, would be to keep the characters faithful to the roles they had in the book, but there you go).

@@nochsta Yes, I understand what he is attempting. I'm saying he hasn't succeeded in his attempts. And the whole "but a repeat viewer" thing is literally beside the point. The point is a person wholly ignorant of the story and Tolkien in general. A repeat viewer is not that.

@@nochsta Another OP comment I made that might help further explain my mindset: "I don't think you're being honest with yourself while pretending to imagine the movies as someone wholly unfamiliar with the IP... If someone has truly NEVER heard of LotR, never read the books, never read synopses, never heard or saw any of the other adaptations, and have no idea about the other 2 books'/movies' titles, then HOW are they supposed to know the things you say are obvious? It's only obvious because we AREN'T wholly unfamiliar with the IP. People complained about RotK's title for a reason back in 2003, man. I was only in 8th grade, but I remember. There were people straight up mad about the track titles of the soundtracks since they were released before the movies, particularly due to the spoiler of Boromir's death. THAT'S what people wholly unfamiliar with Tolkien were thinking when these movies came out. You aren't even trying to look past your familiarity of the topic. This glaring issue with the thought experiment also makes your smug attitude about it even worse. Edit: It's abundantly clear that this is the primary issue of the majority of viewers as well. Most of you in the comments have NO idea what a plot hole actually is, not one person has backed up a "the changes could've been better" comment with any examples, many people are proving that they simply have NOT paid attention to the movies we're discussing, and the vast majority of fans are entirely incapable of actually putting themselves in the shoes of someone wholly ignorant of Tolkien."

@@Richard_Nickerson So a plot hole isn’t a plot hole as long as nobody notices it? Surely, if there’s an inconsistency or incongruity with a character’s actions or motivations, regardless of whether or not a first-time viewer picks up on it, that’s a plot hole. And if you’re making a movie, why should you only be concerned with a first-time viewer’s experience, and not consider ALL your audience - especially if your movie is supposed to be an adaptation of a classic piece of literature. Would it hurt a first-time viewer’s experience if these kinds of changes weren’t made?

@@nochsta Which plot hole that I'm saying isn't one actually is one?

I’m not even talking about stuff that was left out…?

"Injoyabowl" ??? Is English your second language?

I find it interesting that you criticize other commenters for not giving examples but don’t give any yourself. How are the issues I raised not problems even for the complete newbie?

@@TolkienLorePodcast You mean like the examples I literally gave in this comment? Because I absolutely did, guy. Or do you specifically mean I should be citing the other comments in this comment section that specifically fall under the "I just wish they changed it differently to be better" crowd? Calling that out is invalidated by not being able to copy/paste their names and comments? (You *are* aware that you *can't* copy/paste people's names and comments in the mobile app, right?) Odd take. Especially considering that I did, in fact, give examples in this comment of things I'm talking about.

@@TolkienLorePodcast It seems like you didn't read my whole comment. My guess is that you got offended by the beginning, either skimmed or skipped the middle, and read towards the bottom in order to make your reply more than just your final sentence question. How is it obvious to someone wholly unfamiliar with literally everything Tolkien that movie Aragorn will be king?

You said you don’t think I’m being honest with myself about people coming to the movies knowing nothing. Literally every example I used in my video was about internal coherence, but you haven’t given one example of why a viewer would need to know stuff outside the movies to see the coherence problems.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Nope! Re-read my first sentence, as that is objectively a bad interpretation of what I said. It seems to be excluding half the words I used. Nor is that AT ALL what I'm saying. Answer the Aragorn question. You say it's obvious to someone who genuinely has NO idea about ANY of the story WHATSOEVER. THAT'S what I'm talking about - someone would need SOME sort of outside information for that to be so obvious.

I agree most people in real, modern life aren’t very logical. But Tolkien’s characters are.

Your comments fail for me. Dwarves may not care about others but they do care about other Dwarves, and Gimli tells us Balin is his cousin. Time also doesn’t “move differently” for them. And you clearly missed my point about the dwarf on the well-I brought him up to show the dead dwarves weren’t eaten, and instead decomposed naturally, thus implying significant time.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Good point! I'll stick to my argument though. They still live in an isolated location and with the Wars going on it makes sense there might not have been much communication. The Elves were who I meant by Mythical creatures and there eternal life makes time seem to move differently for them. You make a good point about the bodies although I don't know if it's impossible the Dwarf would wind up at a well. Love your content for the most part just wasn't a fan of this video.

🤷🏻‍♂️

I love the movies but they are incredibly shallow thematically compared to the real deal and full of unnecessary, unexplainable changes. Great video

You say that as if we’re talking about book Gandalf. Movie Gandalf very clearly does not want to go to Moria for this exact reason, so he clearly doesn’t think it’s a minuscule chance.

Furthermore, the only one in the Fellowship that would doubt Gandalf’s claim is Gimli and maybe Boromir. Though movie wise, Boromir would gladly welcome Gandalf’s news so they can go through Rohan.

Except Gandalf already told him Sauron had even beasts and birds in his service.

Frodo is a well-known recognizable person who has visited many parts of the Shire, and Hobbits are notorious both for their distrust of strangers and gossiping about their neighbors. Going incognito is not an option.

Sir. Four locations and six "arguEments" is too extreme. What about three locations, five arguments, one rant about elven gestation periods, and a stick of bubble gum?

Did you even watch the video? I don’t hate the movies-I very much like them. But if we aren’t allowed to criticize what we love then how can ever have any nuance in our thinking?

@@TolkienLorePodcast Exactly. Some people treat certain movies as a work of God himself, but they have flaws that people want to ignore. Ie. Luke seeming to care more about Obi-wan than his Aunt and Uncle in the original Star Wars film. P.S. I have no idea why people announce they’re unsubscribed.

I never claimed I was better than Jackson. But if you think that somehow precludes me from pointing out objective problems with his script then you need to take a logic class.

And I wasn't nearly as hostile as your response. How to win friends and influence people--NOT. You should try to not simply piss off your subscribers. But maybe you're not interested in growing your channel, or podcast. By the way, I am WELL acquainted with Patreon, and regularly give money to never less than four different content providers. Drama at the expense of coherence is a bad trade, drama queen. Don't quit your day job.

My response was no more hostile than your original comment. I meant what I said quite literally as a matter of fact, namely that your apparent argument that I was in no position to criticize was a logical fallacy. But trust me, If you’re going to get all high strung over this kind of stuff I don’t want your patronage anyway, not that you were supporting me in the first place so that’s an empty threat.

If things don't make sense, they don't make sense. I've been reading The Lord of the Rings at least annually since 1968 and when the Peter Jackson movies first came out I loved them despite some of the more glaring changes in the way some of the characters are portrayed. (Movie Faramir, I'm talking about *you*!) As movies they are a great experience and I'm sure the purpose of this video is not to dispute that. But they are meant to appeal to the emotions: they do not hold up to logical analysis. Tolkien wrote many, many drafts of the LoTR and his plots are airtight --- each event depends on those that precede it in a complex interlocking chain. The movies do necessary time compression and some re-assigning of dialogue that don't damage that structure, but what is being discussed here are changes that logically don't make sense, not just to people who are familiar with the books but in context of the information that is presented in the movies themselves. Those become more and more obvious each time I watch them.

Peter Jackson is STILL better at making movies than you are