Why Lord Of The Rings Feels Like Tolkien (Even When It Doesn’t) 

Incredible actor and irreplaceable for his role. RIP Bernard Hill 🙏🏼

I always found the language slightly off for some reason. If that line had to be in I would have preferred more precise words such as 'No father should have to bury his son.' 'Or no father should have to bury his daughter' (if it had been a daughter) - would have been better.

absolutely bawling every time, and it wasn’t a Tolkien scene

Théoden is my favorite character. Such tragedy he has to carry around with him, and so much doubt in himself and the chances of his people. I feel Aragorn & Théoden did a lot to pull each other up from their own fears and uncertainties. Bernard Hill was remarkable and powerful in that role.

@@colinclark1396 I like that he said "child", as it means he's not merely grieving for himself, but as a King for all the slain children in his kingdom since Saruman's forces invaded it. He's showing empathy, concern, and lordship as he rightly should.

Fantastic description! I too am a veteran; my first conflict was Grenada, but I continued to serve, with a short break from 2000 to 2002. Four deployments post September 11th 2001, totaling more than 5 years in combat... I too very much appreciate that particular scene. God Bless your son, and all other veterans!

"How do you pick up the threads of an old life?"

Informed perhaps by Tolkien being a veteran - a veteran of battles more horrific than any seen prior to WWI. Battles in which he lost most of his childhood friends. You have to live it to know it and to write about it.

You've got four guys who practically went through hell and back to save the world, and the pub is going mad for the bloke who grew a big pumpkin. I imagined this was a comment on what it must have been like to return to your small town or village after coming home from WW1

What I think is interesting is to compare Tolkien and his writings to Jackson and his movies. Tolkien fought in a war that hit his homeland hard, he came home yet the war was still there, its effects still staining the land. That is reflected in the book's ending in the Scouring of the Shire. Compare this to Jackson, a Kiwi, whose homeland has sent boys to various wars and seen action, but those wars have never found their way to New Zealand, resulting in, as you mention, the folks at home unable to understand what you went through. This is reflected in the movie's peaceful ending, where the other hobbits are their usual selves in the tavern yet our heroic four can only just sadly smile to each other while in the middle of all the merry-making because they can relate to only each other any more.

Plus it otherwise sounds prettier

Thought about that too XD It was a different (less hrny) time...

@@ano_nym lol

Why?

@@09cutie0pie You don’t need to know

Didn't know it wasn't in the book. It is the great line, i cry every time i hear that from Boromir.

I agree. The line reminds me of the Walt Whitman poem, O Captain! My Captain!

@@СерафимТоманов From memory, by the time Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli found Boromir in the book, he was already dead.

I’m not crying, you’re crying! 😭

To be fair, Boromir is probably the character that benefited the most of the adaptation. In the book, Boromir is a lot less developped and "altruistic" ; he is mostly a way to show that the ring's power is especially potent on power-hungry people (even with good intentions). The movie adds a lot of scenes showing both Boromir's compassion for mankind, his family, the halflings, etc. But also a sense of urgency, the idea that his people are in imminent danger without him.

Also,he had to work to become a king.His people trusted him way before he started to wear a crown,which is very important for the character and the plot.That's why Rohan soldiers were following him even they ,for ages,didn't like and trust Gondor.

I think Aragorn is not much less nuanced in the books, especially in the Appendices. He has doubts and fears and must accept heroically what is almost certainly a doomed quest and struggles with uncertainty about what decision to make or path to take. And this is a man nearly 100 years old, who spent decades traveling the world and fighting in Rohan and Gondor against their enemies. His journey was not easy. He didn't always know what to do. But he did his best and would continue to do so even when it seemed hopeless to do so.

Well, the Rohirrim are essentially land-dwelling vikings so, yeah 🤘😝

No wonder metal heads like it so much.

@@marbellaotaiza801 Saxons not Vikings

​@@thodan467eh close enough

@@TheTuttle99 Not in middleearth

Yeah, today we're clearly uncomfortable with the idea that some people are simply entitled to ruling because of their blood. Meanwhile, Tolkien was an unabashed monarchist and superior bloodlines appear all over his work. It's no wonder a modern adaptation tries to lean into "the best people to lead are the ones who don't desire to lead" to soften that.

I wonder how modern this really is. There's a quote about this from Dumbledore, in which he suggests "those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it". From the time when Tolkien was alive, there's King George VI, a reluctant king of the British Empire.

@@ImVeryOriginal Tolkien understood the danger of giving power to people who were not brought up to wield it and a simple look at recent (and especially not so recent) history is pretty good indication that he was right. monarchs don't tend to be good leaders because of their bloodline, but because they were raised to be monarchs and taught to wield power responsibly. next point is that even if a monarch turns out to be a tyrant, that is still only the greed of one tyrant that needs to be satisfied. another huge advantage about a monarchy is that, if the monarch does fail their people, it usually only takes the brutal slaying of one individual to enact change because their successor will think twice about repeating the mistakes of a lynched predecessor. lastly a monarch doesn't need to appeal to lobbyists to ensure they'll be able to continue a life of opulence once they're ousted from their elected position. as opposed to a political system where the greed of an entire ruling party made up of individuals who have no bloody idea about how to wield power responsibly needs to be satisfied and where the death of one member of said party will change absolutely nothing about it.

​@@windhelmguard5295 lol this mf unironically believes feudalism is good

@@ImVeryOriginal lol this mf unironically believes feudalism and monarchy are the same thing.

Agreed. Even with some of the more significant changes regarding Dune, Villeneuve saw it as a way to realize the themes Herbert was writing rather than purely his own ideas.

@@Rauruatreides Yup. The directors were just translating the work to a different medium. This is in contrast to many other adaptations where the director or showrunner thinks they know better than the source material and therefore tries to make "their mark" on adaptation. And that usually leads to disaster.

I hated Denis Dune, and I am a huge book fan. He missed the mark so bad.

@@transformersrevenge9 No adaptation can please everyone unfortunately. All I can say is that my geezer dad who read the book as a teenager loved it and so did I. I thought they were very spiritually and aesthetically faithful.

@@transformersrevenge9 I am a fan of Frank Herbert's Dune saga as well, and I think Villeneuve's movies are great. I think they mostly focused on the right things, given that most of the side plots of the first book don't end up being that pertinent in the long run. The moody "fatedness" heightens some of the actual big themes (Paul's "terrible purpose", "Nietzsche goes to space"). I think they could have done without Chani slinking off into the desert by herself, and I'm a little worried about how they'll tie her back into the story for Dune Messiah, but we'll just have to wait and see.

I wonder whether Gandalf is with Nambla; it probably would be an improvement though

We also see this every time Frodo speaks to his friends and the way Aragorn treats Frodo with care and respect...

This!!! Book Faramir might not be tempted by the ring, but movie Faramir faces that temptation and is still one of the few on-screen characters to overcome it. It works well in the context of the films, if you're open to the chanage

I loved that.He was tempered not to reclaim the ring for himself,but for his father..and that was also before he saw with his own eyes what the ring is doing to Frodo.I actually loved every changes that Jackson and his team have made.I also loved his changes to Frodo.Being stabbed by morgul blade,there is no way he could ride a big horse(that he never did before)for six days by himself.It was more natural to be carried by an elf,who are by nature the best riders.

Bernard Hill delivered the lines so much better though - cuz he was a trained actor.

@@HandGrenadeDivisionit felt like Tolkien’s words was like a riddle or a charade, almost like the delivery of a song with his accent

​@@HandGrenadeDivisionBernard Hill is ofcourse the better actor. But Tolkien delivering it himself from the best moment of the book(though I do prefer the moment before of "Rohan had come at last") is something super special.

​@@HandGrenadeDivisiontolkien also sounded more like the radio announcers from the old days. With his cadence and pace of speaking. Makes sense given the time period he lived. Bernard Hill's performance was absolutely magnificent

It shows the book is vastly superior to the Jackson movies, and the charge of the Rohirrim is one of the few good scenes in them.

From a pure acting standpoint as well, it is one of the best deliveries in the trilogy. Brad Dourif poured everything into that.

​@1047online He truly did. I remember watching him work and thinking: "Wormtongue truly is a vile bastard!" It takes a special kind of talent to pull off the personality of a vile bastard, too.

One of my favorite scenes in the entire film series! Both of them give amazing performances here. Miranda Otto really conveys Eowyn’s depths of despair and shows that oh-so-brief second of “Maybe I should listen to him? I have nothing else…” before she rejects him utterly. He is left staring at the hand that was able to caress her face for the only time.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

@@kathyastrom1315 That is true! I just hated the idea of him and her possibly giving in to his manipulations. Ugh

yes, people fall asleep to lotr movies and say they're boring as they are now, if they were closer to the books they'd stand no chance. Besides, Tolkien isn't a perfect writer, its not the worst thing in the world to make changes imo

Considering the return on investment is important for the investor. If it would have been too long, that would also have cost much more and lesser people watching it, was too risky for sure. It was already a risk and very unusual for the film industry, the way they did it.

Well, that begs the question. Do we just make art now to satisfy the lowest common denominator or do we make art to express our selves and our minds? Tolkien's books are so highly regarded because he made what HE wanted, he wrote the stories HE wanted to tell. He certainly didn't do it to please any specific demographic, I don't believe. And that goes for all great works of art. So, if we're now only making films to engage the most populated demographic is there even a point anymore in making them?

@@jase276 Good question. I know there are a lot of people who only like art (any form of art) as long as it isn't mainstream. Perhaps because they feel it isn't actually good art if it is valued by many, maybe because they are snobs, or maybe they just think art needs to be interpreted by people who know what art is? I can't say what is right, but you are right that he made it because he wanted to. However, it was also an attempt to make something similar to The Kalevala but for Britain (as far as I know). This suggests he wanted people to actually read it. Why publish it if not? He probably would not have liked the movies, and I do get why some people do not. It is a matter of taste and principles too.

If the movies were made for Tolkien aficionados then I would have watched them more than twice over the past 20 years. I can’t even get through them on airplanes they’re so bad. And the LOTR books were massive sellers before the movies; the people who they were meant found them somehow.

And give every character the arc,because,nobody stays the same after going through some life changing moment.Aragorn,in the book was boring to me.There he slways wanted to be king and acted as one.In reallity,he wasn't king..he was a refugee for almost 90 years,so he had to learn how to become a king,like in the movie.

Such a huge stark contrast to the method that Amazon is doing.

I think some of them understood some Elven words. Plus they were arming for the fight

But shit man, the trust you'd have had for the guy who said that would've been critical for one's courage.

Think that was the point.

@@Theomite They all would know who Aragorn is. He was a legend among the people. After all he did serve with the boy's father?

@@MasterGhostf At least in the film, Eowen didn't know who he was exactly. So I think after a few decades memories and tales can fade.

The Scouring of the Shire was cut because PJ had no interest in telling Tolkien's story.

@reek4062 That's a pretty cynical view of things, especially given what PJ actually said about it.

@@reek4062Tell us you didn’t watch the video essay without telling us you didn’t watch the video essay.

I find it unnecessary to add that scene in the movies because the heroes have already went through enough in a lifetime. And suddenly adding a new plot point near the end of the movie I think was going to make the audience groan at the reappearance of Saruman and Grima. I kind of like how they ended the two of them at the towers showdown.

@@bertimusprime7900 I'm sure he had his excuses. But he was supposed to adapt Tolkien's story.

Agreed. One point that I don't think is brought up often enough is that Book-Faramir resisted the temptation of the One Ring more easily than Movie-Aragorn. Of course Movie-Faramir couldn't have been quite as strong as Movie-Aragorn, let alone stronger.

Agree. I felt that Tolkien's Faramir was kind of a "Mary Sue" type character. He was too perfect in the face of temptation. Jackson gave Faramir a plausible emotional reason why he would be tempted by the Ring. Faramir wanted the respect and love of his father, who clearly favored Boromir, his eldest son, over Faramir, his youngest son. The audience could relate to that temptation and feel empathy for Faramir. When Faramir releases Frodo to continue his quest, you could feel that Faramir "passed" his test of temptation, just like Galadriel did hers. All in all, Jackson's Faramir kept the tension with the Ring as a source of temptation that had to be destroyed and moved the plot forward.

​@@tmbarton1961Book-Aragorn too is almost too perfect. And I, though a Tolkien fan for many years, appreciated the way the movies gave him and arch and a more compelling motivation than "I have to become king if I want to get the girl". BUT I never suffered the changes they made to Faramir, and NOT because they made him more prone to temptation: people seem not understand that it's not that the problem, but the way he behaves: rude, ruthless, even brutal with Gollum. He doesn't have nothing of the honorable man we meet in the books. They had Galadriel tempted way more than in the books, but she was still the noble and mysterious lady she is in the books; they could have done the same for Faramir.

@@Laurelin70 I didn't have a problem with the way Jackson's Faramir treated Gollum. Gollum violated one of their laws and he resisted arrest. In the books, Aragorn wanted to kill Gollum after Gandalf had finished interrogating him. Gandalf rejected that because he felt that Gollum may have a purpose in the fate of the Ring.

@@tmbarton1961 Especially since they didnt know who or what Gollum is and if he told Sauron or any orcs how to get to the secret base it would be a massive blow to Gondor's operations.

You are correct except for the fact that the trend is not unconscious but very much wanted. They are ushering in a new era of social and moral norms you may just not fully realize it yet.

Agree. Faramir was still portrayed as a noble man by Jackson, but in the movies, Jackson, saw what Tolkein did not see, Faramir as a son who wanted the love of his father, a father who was angry about losing his eldest son, Boromir. In the book, Tolkien tells us why Denethor distrusted Faramir. Faramir was educated by Gandalf and Denethor did not trust Gandalf. To keep the suspense strong about the temptations of the Ring, Jackson made the right call for Faramir to be tempted to take the Ring to his father so that he could gain his father's love and trust. That's a powerful emotion that the Ring would plausibly exploit.

@@tmbarton1961 I made this comment on another post, but Tolkien, being a Classics scholar probably made his heroes more Homeric than modern: one-note and unchanging, heroic for their unflinching resolve and unflappable fortitude. That kind of character is dramatic but not 3-dimensional. So I think Tolkien didn't bother to analyze the psyches of his characters or maybe even bother with Campbell or Jung's theses (he probably would've rejected them entirely had he done so), whereas Jackson did. I think that's why the film versions stand out all these years later: we can see where they're coming from because Jackson gave them the nuance that Tolkien didn't.

Changing Faramir does generally fit with the movies' efforts to make the characters more human and 3-dimensional, but I'm still not a huge fan of it. Faramir's arc ended being about the same as Boromir's: trying to take the Ring, then regretting/rethinking it at some point. The main difference is that Faramir lived. Otherwise it's hard for me to see the difference. To be fair, Faramir is always in someone's shadow. In the books, he was basically Aragorn-lite. In the movies, he's Boromir-lite. He kind of struggles to stand out as his own character, I think.

@@LittleMezzoBird I prefer to think of film!Faramir as being a better Boromir. Maybe not a better warrior, (though he's formidable enough it his own right, as his men are completely committed to him,) but a better person in general, capable of the kind of hope that was a central theme of the entire series.

​@@thing_under_the_stairsIn the books I see him as the better Boromir. In the movies it was lost on me. It didn't made him more 3 dimensional for me, I just couldn't understand his decisions at all. I think I watched the movies more times than I read the books now and I'm still just confused what the extra scenes with Sam, Frodo and Faramir are supposed to tell me. It's one of the few things I don't like about the movies.

@@MemphisFloyd John Connor, Luke Skywalker, and Indiana Jones are the biggest and most famous examples that come to mind. John's example is perhaps the worst of the three, in my opinion. In the first five films (and the TV show), John was the most important character, the one everyone is either trying to protect or kill. He was the literal savior of the human race, the one destined to stop Skynet and guide humanity to a new age of peace. Yet, in 'Dark Fate,' the film literally murders him in the first two minutes so a woman can take his place to fight against an enemy that's just Skynet with a new coat of paint. It would have been better to show a middle-aged John trying to find his way through life having never become who he was meant to be, then standing up to lead the fight against an enemy he has never faced and doesn't know how to defeat, or passing on everything he's learned to someone else before dying in a blaze of glory saving humanity as he was always meant to. With Luke and Indy, both of them are shown to be old, broken, bitter men who have lost everything they cared about and are just waiting to die. And instead of relying on their experience, determination, and willpower to solve their problems and find happiness again, they are instead guided by younger women who are better than them at pretty much everything, and ultimately rely on them to finally come back from the brink. Fans don't want to see their childhood heroes get kicked to the curb so someone younger, hotter, and more skilled can take their place. We want to see our childhood heroes adapting to old age, going on one last adventure, and ending their stories on a high note, and Hollywood has consistently failed to do that again and again.

@@Leprechaunproduction Well put. The destruction of heroes is an important part of conquering and subjugating a culture. We are in the midst of an ideological and cultural war. The message: Tear down your old statues, abandon your old gods and heroes, and embrace your new masters.

You mean male heroes are being torn down not all heroes; The war on masculinity and positive male role models by the powers that be. Female heroes on the other hand, aren't being torn down but they are having their inherent female traits replaced with masculine traits because feminists and leftists do not consider female traits & agency to have any merit and want to warp women to become more like men in an effort to subvert society; hence the epitome of a strong woman is a woman that behaves like a man in every way, creating insufferable tokenized female characters that put off the viewing audience to the point that the masses now outright avoid watching movies starring female protagonists ( Rings of power Galadriel vs Tolkien's/Peter Jacksons Galadriel).

@@Leprechaunproduction try real-world examples now

@@Leprechaunproduction Well said. And for a stellar example of doing the reverse of this, we got the much-loved Top Gun: Maverick. Turns out giving people what they want instead of what "you" (these writers/etc) want gives better results, who ever would have guessed...

I don't think people really think this, only a small minority of people who have the power.

@@Hero_Of_Old Agreed its not people ... its mainly Writers, especially writer that take on existing worlds /franchises ...

Arrogance.

It's such arrogance. You think you're a better writer than Tolkien? Not just Tolkien but his best work.

This is just an urge humans have. We’ve been telling and retelling the same stories for thousands of years. Always changing the bits we want and keeping others. Shit, look at how many different revisions the Christian bible has. And that just since the invention of writing. A lot of those stories were told for ages before we even had writing.

I think it can be done, but it's like changing a recipe. You have to understand what you're doing - why the onions are cut in that way, or why you stir it every 2 minutes instead of 2 1/2. If I order lasagna, I would expect to get lasagna; but if it's described on the menu as lasagna with some changes, I'd be willing to order that too.

and then he did the hobbit films....

@@jorbdan6305 The problems with the Hobbit trilogy were more a product of studio interference than anything Jackson did. Hell, he didn't even want to be involved -- he was brought in last minute after del Toro was fired from the project.

@@shalomamigos On the other hand, if I order lasagna and I get salmon, I'm going to be very upset.

@@jorbdan6305 The Hobbit films are pretty terrible, yes, but I think the only reason they weren't a complete disaster is Jackson. Take a look at some of the behind the scenes stuff from those movies. The studio (who was responsible for the decision to make it another trilogy) brought in Jackson last minute to replace del Toro. Instead of 3-4 years of prep like he had for LotR, Jackson had weeks. He even said that it was somewhat common for him to send everyone to lunch so that he could plan out the scene they would film when everyone came back. Like, what? It's amazing that the movies made any sense at all. IMO the studio trashed the Hobbit, and Jackson salvaged what he could.

Nothing is more beautiful to me than Tolkien's later description of Minas Tirith given to Boromir as dialogue much earlier in Fellowship. It conveys so painfully the way Boromir saw his home, in his heart, and how he carried it with him. And if anything, it makes it more significant because in that way, it is communicated to Aragorn.

Something that should be the standard for any adaptation of a beloved story, but seems to be increasingly ignored.

I don't know. The spirit is pretty anti-war and, as mentioned in this video, can you be faithful to it with a bunch of cool battle scenes?

@@yllejord Well...ultimately yes, of course. Because even insofar as Tolkien was shaped by the horrors of the fields of France to some extent, in his short experience of WW1, he was also strongly, and passionately a proponent of standing against and overcoming evil. And he knew sometimes that would inevitably involve a fighting in ideological, philosophical, and physical terms. The books involve many great literal conflicts on the field of battle.

@@yllejord I mean, compare how Frodo looks before war, and after war. Sure, there's cool action sequences, but man, war is rough.

Nah, that was lame. And it makes no sense: the last alliance was between the descendants of the Noldor and and the descendants of the Numenoreans. Silvan elves and "lesser" men like the Rohirrim never had an alliance so there's nothing to fulfill.

I dont mind it and supposedly Jackson put them in to convey that the elves fought their own battles in the war which they did. The Dead Army sweeping the field in the last battle is unforgivable though and destroys the main theme of the story that men are now responsible for saving Middle Earth on their own accord.

@@ColoradoStreaming so men getting help from the dead, bad, but men getting help from the elves, good? LoL It would've been somewhat respectable had he included things mentioned but not developed in the text, like Celeborn attacking Dol Guldur.

@@marbellaotaiza801 The difference is the Elves supported the men at Helm's deep but they didnt just magically win the battle like the Dead Army did.

@@ColoradoStreaming the non-difference is that both are figments of the screenwriters imagination as none of that happens in the books...

I mean, its alright? I loved them as a kid but 2-3 are just OKAY, they arent some great movies by an means. The 1st one is still great though.

@@barkley8285 The character dynamics in the second and third movie are extremely good. One might just gloss over them as classic action, adventure, pirates, etc. movies, but the writing is actually very good. And since other things like visuals, sound design and music are of a good quality too, you get a really good package. There is not a whole lot of bad stuff to say about them, save maybe that their existance was a huge reason why "Master and Commander" never got their sequels - something that "The Return of the King" is too blame for too

​@@racernatorde5318. Or as i'd like to call them"yet another thing Doug Walker is wrong about"!

​​​@@barkley8285. You're sounding an awful lot like Doug Walker, please stop it! From what I heard mortal kombat's 3D midway era was basically like the Pirates trilogy.

Definitely prefer it to the LOTR.

Yeah I feel that Peter Jackson actually improved on Tolkein's work.

I agree. The main story is over so some more soft handing imagery showing they change is better for the movie. I never like the whole every soldier suffer from PTSD. It is a terrible stereotype and a worse trope that writer lean on too much.

Most people fail to realize the vast difference between prose and cinema. Pacing, for one, is almost opposite between books and movies. A film must contain all plot and character development within a couple of hours or so. A book allows a reader to take weeks, if they wish, to digest the story. They are utterly different mediums, as much different as music is to painting.

@@randomusernameCallin Huh...my father (a veteran of Vietnam) and my grandfathers (WW2 veterans) all related that they found the quiet, reflective silence of the four hobbits in the Green Dragon deeply moving, as it represented the inability for veterans to "go home again" among civilians who cannot understand their experiences.

@@randomusernameCallin Weird to call it a stereotype or a trope when it is drawn from the author's lived experience, and it's not "an every soldier has ptsd" thing when a crucial part of Frodo's suffering is that his suffering was unique among the hobbits. The contrast between Frodo's mental state and that of Merry and Pippin is important, war changes soldiers in different ways.

I cried. That scene always tears me up, but hearing Tolkien himself (as I presume) read it was just great.

​@@NemisCassanderIt is from professor Tolkien. He was even suspicious of this new technology so he prayed on it before using it. You can search it up the original by searching Tolkien narrating Ride of the Rohirrin

Exactly. And you can tell how much Peter, Fran, and Philippa loved and respected the source material. Even when they did make substantial changes. (Less so in The Hobbit movies, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.) You just don’t feel that level of diligence from the Amazon series.

Only the theatricals are a masterpiece. The extended editions are bloated and convoluted. And pack too much humor.

@@DestinyAwaits19I would actually say the opposite - the Extended versions are how the movie should have been in the first place. It adds so much detail, adds so much to the journey that seemed lost in comparison to the books … Watching the extended versions simply can‘t be undone - after it, she „short“ version simply feels lacking …

@@arneczool6614 Yes. There are scenes left out in the theatricals. Perhaps important ones. But to that I would say they won't be missed. They have enough scenes to tell the story, and get the point across. The extended editions take the perfect pacing of the movies and over indulge in fan service. Aragorn eating Eowyn's stew is pointless. So is Merry and Pippin drinking Ent Water. Or an Orc complaining to Saruman about lack of logistics. While these scenes are fun, they are also corny and not needed. And there's too many of them. Too many for my comfort that ruins the feel of an epic trilogy. It indulges in triviality. The extended editions are beloved because they're fun. But Lord of the Rings is not meant to be fun. It's a journey of darkness and treachery. Its not meant to be Disney Land. Which is what I think the fans don't get. They're meant to be ominous and foreboding, which the theatricals do an excellent job of preserving.

@@DestinyAwaits19 For me, exactly these little „pointless“ details make the difference to really „feel“ for the characters. If I‘d watch a random action movie, I want it to quickly come to some cool action scenes without too much interruptions, but for Lord of the Rings, its totally different. I want to experience the whole journey, not just the highlights - and even scenes like the „soup for Aragorn“ might look just as funny additions at first sight, but so much more flesh out the characters and their relaition towards each other. And my goal when watching lord of the right is not to get “the most efficient way to see the point of the story“, its to experience middle earth, to feel like being a part of it. And especially the contrast between LoR and the hobbit extended points out what I mean. The LotR extended seems to pay more respect to Tolkins work, while the Hobbit does exactly what you said about LotREx.

@@arneczool6614 LOTR movies should be an adaptation... not a translation. Jackson's movies are a creation of their own. They're not replica's of Tolkien's work. The movies are based around battles, which Tolkien was against. Further proving as movies they're meant to be ominous and foreboding and tense. I never liked the books. I never liked Tolkien's writing style. He drags on and meanders, and it doesn't suit a 21st Century audience raised on guns and action.

Gandalf backing up from it like it's radioactive speaks volumes about just how dangerous it is. If the Merlin of your story is afraid, then you KNOW you'd better be terrified.

Hard enough to make a piece of jewelry scary onscreen as it is.

@@SoUncivilized414 Indeed, and the scary Sauron voice is best use sparingly to not let the audience get used to it.

Personally, I'm still firmly in the belief that the first half of Fellowship was the most disjointed rambling pointless part of the entire story. It was just wacky dangerous adventures the Hobbits were going through on their way to Bree, when Lord of The Rings was kind of going on like The Hobbit. Tom Bombadil and the whole mess on the Barrowdowns had no impact on the later story whatsoever, and if it had been included in the movies would have just confused everyone. I adore worldbuilding, but I also prefer when it has a point. When I tell people about the lore that was left out of the movies, I tell them about the Scouring of the Shire, about Sam planting the mallorn tree, about the real fate of Saruman, about Merry and Pippin becoming proud (and very tall!) knights of Rohan and Gondor, about Aragorn's death and Arwen's withering away, about how Sam travels to Valinor and at length so too do Legolas, and Gimli with his crystal that contained three hairs of Galadriel, about how the heirs of the Red Book of Westmarch wrote the story that became the books once translated by Tolkien after he received it through the fourth wall. I don't mention silly old Tom Bombadillo, with his blue coat and his boots of yellow.

@@Yonkage-ik5qb While I have some similar feelings about the start of the fellowship, nothing Tolkien wrote was pointless. Sometimes the meaning was buried outside of the core of the novel. For the example of the Barrowdowns, the swords that were recovered there by the hobbits were forged and enchanted by ancient men specifically to do battle with the Witch King and his ilk. Had Merry struck the Witch King with any other blade it would not have wounded him so. It's part of what I love so much about the writing, though I can understand why others disagree, and why some of it's unsuitable for adaptation.

And those changes were mostly fitting into the rest of the story. Many movies make changes, but don't adjust anything and then characters or story arcs make no sense anymore

PJ made a translation of the story.

"The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all.” (J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Rings, "Concerning Hobbits"). "(Galadriel) was then of Amazon disposition” (The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien, Letter 348). Tolkien only and exclusively used the term amazon for warrior women, the early Valie Measse, Haleth _and_ Galadriel. He explicitely said that e.g. (the final version of) Eowyn was not an amazon. "Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she (Galadriel) fought fiercely against Fëanor in defence of her mother’s kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Fëanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could."(J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales,The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’) "She (Galadriel) looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs" (J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’). This quote is not only Second Age, it comes directly from the time of the Forging of the Rings of Power.

@@anni.68 That may be true but I would still argue that even if they may have had some roots in what Tolkien alluded to, he still didn't write directly any scenes that were reflected in the show. For one thing, even if Tolkien described Galadriel as "Amazonian" she still wasn't a girl boss military commander who blindly led her soldiers across Middle Earth for Eru only knows how many centuries, not caring one iota about their health or well being. And she may not have known that Annatar was Sauron per se, but she still sure as heck didn't trust him, especially given how Tolkien described her as the most perceptive of the elves. And while Hobbits existed, Tolkien didn't describe them as psychotic murder hobos who will leave their own behind at the drop of a hat and yet "not forget them." He didn't consider them important enough to include at all (especially not happening to meet -Gandalf- one of the five Wizards who aren't supposed to show up until the third age and Rings of Prime takes place in the second age) And true, we don't know how Mordor was created, but come on, a rube goldberg machine and an exploding volcano with 1000 degree F pyroclastic flow that somehow didn't kill everyone who was hit by it? Tolkien would have written something _vastly_ more intelligent than that. Same goes for the Mithril thing, even if one was to come up with some convoluted way Mithril was created or that it was "tied to the elves lifeforce" (which is more or less conflicting with Tolkien's description of the elves lives being tied to that of Arda, NOT mithril), surely one could come up with something better than "an elf and a balrog fought under a tree that was struck by lightning and that's how mithril was formed." Even if it's apocryphal, it's still stupid, and it's not reflected in Tolkien's work that their life force is tied to it. And I'll give you that Sauron already left before they technically made the Rings, but it still could be inferred that he might have had more of an influence on them that he should, as well as the fact that they made the three before the others, which still contradicts the orders of Tolkien's events. The three rings were made in response to the One, which was made after the seven for the dwarves and nine for men. So having them made first is silly, and opposite of what Tolkien wrote. Even if there are traces (and very thin traces) of Tolkien's ideas in Rings of Prime, it still stands that the whole overarching story and all of its plot points did _not_ happen in Tolkien's works. And people can argue all day as to the show's quality on it's own (for my money, it's an absolute stinker), but as an adaptation, it's abysmal. And I'm not necessarily against adaptations doing things differently, which is why I like Jackson's films so much, even though I prefer the book. But they're not really adapting anything with the Amazon show. They're taking some Tolkien-esque ideas and writing their own story with it.

@anni.68 "No Elf, neither *Galadriel* nor Celebrimbor and his Gwaith-i-Mírdain, had any chance against his powers of deception" Oof, you just contradicted Tolkien's text in one sentence. What I gleamed from your argument is that you are stating Amazon is justified in making additions/changes to the Legendarium by citing material like The Peoples of Middle-Earth; which they don't have the rights to; or claiming 'Tolkien wrote so very little about this age' which is completely untrue.

The thing is though that it *doesn’t remain faithful or respectful of Tolkien’s themes*, and if those aren’t the heart I don’t know what is? The PJ Trilogy deviates from the structure, characterization and themes of the original novel all the time. It’s telling its own story, heavily inspired by the novel but clearly separate from it in hundreds of ways big and small - and not only in ways that make it more easily accessible to modern audiences, like making Arwen more of a character and giving Aragorn a bunch of self-doubt, but also in ways that truly break Tolkien’s whole theme at absolutely pivotal moments like Frodo pushing Gollum into the Cracks of Doom rather than the eucatastrophe of Gollum slipping in all on his own. Like forget elves eating mithril or whatever - if Tolkien saw that Gollum thing he’d spin so fast in his grave that he’d create a black hole. (Despite this they’re still great movies! I absolutely love them, you can love them too.) When people say stuff like ‘the PJ films kept the story, characters and themes of the novel consistent, which is why it’s beloved by the fanbase, but ROP actively destroys those themes, which is why the fanbase hates it’ you can maybe understand why people get suspicious about your understanding of the OG novels (which btw I’m not saying you didn’t read, because you may have), because everything about that statement is wrong - the PJ films weren’t consistent in those ways at all, so that can’t be why the fanbase loves them. It’s like saying ‘I love the sky because it’s such a nice shade of green’. I think you may be confusing good filmmaking and storytelling (which the movies have in spades) with faithfulness to the material (which the movies have in small trowelfuls). In all honesty the most common critique seems to center on ROP being fanfiction. You can absolutely like and dislike things on whatever criteria you choose - I just think you should remain consistent. And if being fanfiction is enough of a reason to hate something, then I’ve got some terrible news for you about such incredible works as The Aeneid and 50 Shades of Gray and Paradise Lost - these are all fanfictions as well, and I’m afraid you’ve got to hate them too. Personally I think it’s best to critique a piece of storytelling primarily as a story, not as a specific type of medium. When we get to that - the actual storytelling of ROP - that’s when I think we get to ths real stuff that’s actually worthwhile to talk about. And we can absolutely disagree there - but we can agree too! I think ROP has some significant flaws that I’m hoping are ironed out. Im hoping to Eru for that mithril thing to be a red herring lol. That said, ROP also has some really great stuff that engages with Tolkien on a truly deep level, like grappling with the problem of orcs having souls and not just being mindless robots our heroes can slaughter without moral consequences (a problem that Tolkien himself was aware of and never fully resolved, and which the PJ adaptation didn’t touch). ROP also goes into the way that Sauron *actively thinks he is doing good and can attract people to his cause on that basis*, which Tolkien was explicit about - Sauron thinks he’s the good guy and can actually make a compelling (though wrong) case for this, especially in the Second Age. Again, the PJ films don’t touch this with a ten-foot pole, unsurprisingly so because there’s a pervasive and mistaken belief in pop culture that Tolkien’s method is uncomplicatedly black and white. In reality it’s far from that, and while there are good and bad actions every character has a combination of both motivations within them - just like in real life. ROP gets my respect for engaging with the mythos on that level. I’m not gonna defend everything in there. ROP deviated from the source material in some ways that I don’t really like, but it also fleshed out a period in Middle Earth’s history that was just bare bones before and that’s really cool to see on screen - and it’s something we can never get outside of a fanfiction either. That kid’s probably going to turn into a Nazgûl and we get to understand why he would even if we don’t agree with it, and that’s absolutely cool and has the potential to explore some fantastic moral quandaries, and I think Tolkien would really appreciate that approach to adapting his work (despite the fact that o think he’d hate most of pretty much any adaptation we’ve seen so far). Anyway, that’s me.

@@jaceyking47 Maybe you're forgetting that the RoP folks are making a series that happens IN THE GAPS of what Tolkien wrote. OF COURSE they didn't happen in Tolkien's works. But what was Elendil up to until he shows up in Tolkien's works? Isildur? What were Elrond and Gil-Galad up to in between the scenes we see? WE DON'T KNOW. So the writers are filling that in. There are definitely things in there, and will be things, that Tolkien wrote, but he spent very little time on the Second Age. I feel like there is so much you're missing here. I've watched RoP enough times to see the ways in which it absolutely connects to Tolkien's works. Look, you hate RoP? That's fine. But you've only seen a little of one season of a 5-season story. Much is yet to happen. And the showrunners have repeatedly talked about how much they love and respect Tolkien and his works. So have many of the actors. I think a lot of people have their knickers in a twist over RoP because they weren't going to give it a chance from the get-go. Warrior Galadriel, oh no! This is shit! No. It is not. And Season 2 is going to be epic.

Never. I truly believe that. I followed the making of the films back in the day on TORN and other sources and to us it was evident with which LOVE everyhone involved made this LOTR film. Script, cast, crew, everyone. That dedication I think you will NEVER find again on this earth.

I keep falling asleep during those films..There is no story, just grand visuals and unsympathetic characters. I find myself rooting for the villains ..👺👺

The reason Tolkien's words are so much more effective than Herbert's is that Tolkien was a better writer. High fantasy is a garden of delight for an old school, poetic wordsmith. Herbert created an extraordinarily rich and detailed world, but he lacked the poetic sensibilities to populate the books he wrote about it with gorgeous prose. In Herbert's defense, the writing style in speculative fiction had moved on. The ideas had become richer, but the prose poorer.

Claiming Dune is not authentic is crazyyyy. The lack of dialogue was an excellent creative choice.

One hopes.

I hope not.

​@@reek4062 I hope so, detractor.

Rohan on Pelennor was written wonderfully, it just needed to be copied to the screen, but Jackson dropped the ball.

​@@josiprakonca2185Jackson did perfectly. Stop detracting.

Check out fan cuts. They tend to remove Legolas, Tauriel, Alfred and sometimes even Azog for the most part. And also reduce the battle of the five armies to a reasonable amount

@@racernatorde5318 I'll definitely check it out. There are some great moments in The Hobbit, but the best bits are Riddles in the Dark, or the confrontation with Smaug, and the low points are the pointless action or manufactured drama for screentime.

The problem was the opposite of LotR--Jackson sought to make LotR, and had to convince a studio to let him. For the Hobbit, the studio cajoled Jackson into being the producer, and when he had to take over for Del Toro, they were already far into production and he had to cut corners to meet the deadline the studio gave.

Instead of trying to make Tolkien’s film they made their own.

@@racernatorde5318 The fan cut is the only version I remember now. I only wish there be something done with how Bilbo decided to go on an adventure. Not by contract, but because of his deeply rooted ancestry being invoked upon.

Nothing wrong with that trilogy 🤷🏼‍♀️

The maple cut and m4 are fantastic.

​@@notjustanother3191 I have watched one of those and it was pretty great except the tone/pacing of the Unexpected Party felt off without the prologue.

Honestly, if you ignore the love triangle bits, they're pretty decent movies. My primary problem with them is how I think they fail to transition from "light-hearted children's movie" in the first movie to "extremely serious prelude to the LOTR trilogy" by the third, when I don't think the books were really written that way. Extended edition Battle of the Give Armies has some fantastic funny/action moments with that dumb war cart that I just love.

@@LoganChristianson That's exactly the kind of scene that fans did NOT like. It's the hollywood approach to doing action scenes and it's just as unbearable as bollywoods ridiculous stuff. I don't think it would have worked to have the movies to be as light hearted as the book, because than you would have a massive contrast to the LotR movies and since both are life action movies with some identical casts, identical scenery and so on, this would have been very jarring

''Books and movies are different mediums; adaptations have to make changes.'' 90% of defenses for the Peter Jackson movies. The problem is that those movies have hundreds of unnecessary changes, butcher the characters and are unfaithful to the book.

​@@reek4062They were as faithful to the books as a love adaption at the time would permit them to be. It is obvious they made changes solely for the purpose of adaption rather than inserting their own messages into Tolkien's story. I've seen in the replies to many comments on this video and you don't seem to understand this.

@@ShatteredIce These movies are a love adaptation in the same way rapists love their victims. They made changes because they had no faith or interest in Tolkien's story.

That is bullshit.​@@reek4062

In this case a very poor retelling

@@reek4062rings of power has a different director

Read Unfinished Tales.

As I'm reading Lord of the Rings, I always get a little caught off-guard when I come across a line in the book that sounds in my head like the actor from the movies is saying it. It's also interesting just how much more conflict the movies have compared to the books. Faramir's choice was mentioned in the video, but also Théoden's loss of hope and pretty much every conversation between Smeagol and Gollum leading to Sam being dismissed. I totally understand that character arcs need to either start at or reach a low point in order for there to be a compelling upliftment and culmination, it's just a little jarring when you're experiencing both back-to-back.

Beren and Luthien and Fall of Gondolin are a little difficult because they aren't finished narratives. They are a compilation of various versions in different states of completion. Still worth reading but its important to know what your getting into. You should also check out Children of Hurin, it is complete and is also one of the great tales of the first age. The conversation between Hurin and Morgoth is one of my favorite scenes in all of Tolkien.

Aragorn was not a protagonist in the book, but a supporting character. Jackson turned him into a protagonist in the film, so he needed a full character arc, meaning he had to show significant growth, like all protagonists must. The problem was that book Aragorn was already a fully matured character that needed little to no development--he was already responsible, desired to claim the throne, was secure in his love and desire to marry Arwen, etc. Great for a supporting character in the book...but he needed to show development as a protagonist in the film.

​@@rikk319 basically he went through movie Aragorn's character arc already, while in the movies he just setting foot on this path of becoming better and more worthy as the King

Tolkein himself approved of adaptation as a concept after all - he'd even advocated for cutting Helm's Deep out entirely if it better fit a movie so as to not clash with the Battle of the Pellenor Fields.

The films show no respect to the book.

@@reek4062 You literally just saw a video essay about the *intense* respect for the book the Jackson movies show.

@@reek4062you mean the series

@@ariandynas A video essay whose main thesis is "Jackson showed 'respect' for the books by taking words Tolkien wrote for specific characters, divorcing them from those characters, and giving them to others." Ah yes, that's so respectful of Tolkien. A scrapbook of dialogue put into the mouths of whatever character Jackson felt like that day. That certainly has no adverse effects on characterization.

Yes, good point.

Made me think... one one hand it's not perfect, but it's as good as it can be... on the other hand isn't as good as can be the definition of perfect.

For me the biggest vandalism are the changes to Frodo to make him less capable, more of a passenger. Not fighting to the last against the Witch King, not being the one to face them at the ford, staggering around like he is mind controlled in Osgiliath and offering the ring to a Nazgul (!) and sending Sam away on the stairs, all terrible changes imo that make Frodo not the same character he was in the books. And given Frodo is the main character of the story, getting him right is really important. But I agree, Denethor and Faramir get done dirty as well. But really few characters escape the adaptation without being lessened and coarsened.

@@johnnybigbones4955 I totally agree that the film misses something important by letting Frodo be so seemingly weak. His understanding of what was at stake and his complete trust in Gandalf made him strong against the power of the Ring to corrupt. Those moments you mention were wasted opportunities to give him the stature he deserves. Sam is often looked at as the real hero, but Sam understood he was above all the protector and enabler of the one who carried the Burden, a task he was not cut out to do.

Definitely dropped the ball on Frodo, he's pretty much unrecognizable. Not sure why they made him so incompetent. And I don't get the choice to send Sam away in the middle of ROTK, just drama I guess? As if there isn't enough? I didn't mind the changes to Faramir, but Denethor was way too cartoonishly dickish.

So glad I'm not the only one! However people may feel about the movie adaptations, the fact that they can have such an impact on us from just a clip... surely says enough.

When you have beautiful writing paired with expert actors, the setting doesn't matter as much haha. I got tears a few times watching this from how poignant the delivery of certain lines was. Sam speaking of Faramir's character hit me especially hard.

No idea if people want to read a massive wall of text, but since it was well-recieved in the conversation, I did express some thoughts on the Faramir adaptation. I think there was more done with his character than is often claimed by the critics, how they just 'ruined' him. I think they did something more with him: I think the other character that got changed the most was Faramir. And a lot of people didn't like that because Faramir in the books was awesome, and they didn't like him being changed into a completely different person. /briareus08 expressed such a feeling. And I get that. I love Faramir in the books too. But there is something to be said for his changes in the movie. He perhaps provides an even greater distinction than Aragorn between a Paragon who does and a Character who struggles. And I think it makes him more interesting in the movie than the book. Speaking in broad generalities here, In the books Faramir is the mirror image of Boromir. Boromir was a great leader and warrior, while Faramir was a great leader and scholar. They were two sides of the same coin. To illustrate this, when Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he instantly realizes that he ought to help them, and that they're on an important mission. When mention of the ring is vaguely brought up, he basically dismisses it out of hand. "I wouldn't pick it up if it were laying on the side of the road." or something like that. This demonstrates that he's wise, and studied, and knows not to go after the ring. But on the other hand... to me this really diminishes the weight of the Ring itself. If, randomly, some people can just ignore it, that really undercuts the idea of this being an all-corrupting evil. Which kind of makes Boromir look really weak in comparison to his brother. He was driven mad by the ring while Faramir just says: "Nah, no thanks." and leaves it at that. Now, one could argue that if Faramir had seen or gotten into contact with the ring, he might have been corrupted just as easily as Boromir, and Faramir knew that which is why he would intentionally never touch it. But denying oneself temptation isn't exactly the same thing as resisting it. It's the difference between an alcoholic turning down a drink at a bar, or staying home. One relies on your force of will, while the other relies on smart forward-thinking so that your will is never tested. It'd certainly be the [Book]-Faramir thing to do, but all the same, it's a little less interesting. It's the same sort of question as: "Can you really be courageous if you're never afraid?" In the movie, Fairmir is changed from being his brother's mirror image to being his opposite or his understudy. A lesser leader and a lesser warrior. And this sets up a great dynamic between Faramir and his family. Despite always being in his brother's shadow, Faramir is never resentful or jealous of his brother - he loves Boromir outright, and Boromir him in turn. What he craves is the approval of his father. Denathor arguably takes the biggest hit in losing complexity and nuance from book to movie, but his more simplistic characterization serves to better drive the Faramir/Denathor dynamic, which I think was a worthwhile tradeoff. So when movie Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he waylays them, and plans to send them with the ring to his father to finally gain Denathor's approval. Faramirs more normal susceptibility to the draw of the ring helps drive the parallels between him and Boromir, and doesn't make Boromir look abnormally corruptible. More importantly, Faramir eventually relents and sends the Hobbits on their way. This act is significant because it shows three huge things all at once. First, Faramir succeeds where his brother failed. He finally rose above and out of his brother's shadow. And he doesn't do this easily, but is really rather on the edge, and struggles with it. Secondly, this choice of doing the right thing and rising above his brother is a choice in his own mind, by his own standard, rather than his father's. It's in direct defiance of what his father would want of him - the father whose approval he desperately craved. And it's not so simplistic as him renouncing his father and deciding not to care about what Denathor thinks. We see in the third film that he's still willing to literally throw his life away just to try and gain his father's approval. It's easy to make a choice when you stop caring about one of the options. It's far more interesting, dramatic, and demonstrative of an underlying strength of character to desperately want both things and still choose the right thing. In the end, the example of Boromir's death was stronger than Faramirs desperation for Denathor's approval. It pushed him over the edge, which means Faramir likely only succeeded where Boromir failed because of Boromir's example. And so (thirdly) through Fairamir, by being a loving brother, Boromir also gains redemption. Faramir is an utterly different person in the books and the movies. And it's perfectly fair to argue that the cost of losing book-Faramir was't worth it. But it's undeniable that the Faramir we got in the movies perfectly fits into the themes of the story, and provides for great dynamic between him and his family which ties together and strengthens the characterization of both him and Boromir. I think he's probably one of the strongest and best-written characters in the movies because of that. Which is a funny contrast because Sam remains my favorite character, and he's perfect precisely because he's totally faithful to his book counterpart. I see no distinction between the two - Movie Sam just gets an awesome soundtrack to accompany him. Which goes to show that Tolkien was perfectly capable of writing great, characters. The choice to have most of the fellowship already be paragons - Heros past their own Heroic journey, fully realized and just doing heroic things - was an active choice to make the books more focused on the world and the adventure. He wasn't lacking, he just had a different focus than what the movies did, and it makes it all the richer that we get both experiences.

Howard Shore ascended here, maybe the best single element of the whole project

Now I'm hearing the Uruk Hai theme in my head!

@@Polyphemus47 Duuun, dun dun!!!!

But you can't write good music if you're rushed or the script/the scene isn't inspiring. Which is what happens to John Williams in new Star Wars, the score can't save a bad script.

to be fair, no, visuals arent easy ;) for one the movies are based on late medieval, the books more on early to high medieval. plus it just looks right, because they listened to the right person to make (MASSIV) changes to costumes. we only got those very good costumes because they had an reenactor as an advisor (and listened to him), otherwise we would have gotten the typical fantasy armor/costume designs. especially with armor it helps if you ask someone who knows how that stuff works (even if there could be improvements still)

The public can't handle infallible heroes in their Hollywood blockbusters.

The extended version helps a lot for Boromir, as it also does with showing Frodo not just fainting and getting hurt. Though it still does Denethor dirty, for sure.

Walsh and Boyens made a mockery out of the book.

​@@reek4062And your attempts to cut down their efforts makes a mockery out of yourself.

@@ShatteredIce Unlike them, I didn't molest Tolkien's characters.

Who are they?

@@joshuagregoire9504 Two of the co-writers of the trilogy alongside Peter Jackson himself. There’s clips of them in this video.

YES!

I think he did love the books, but I'm not sure he understood Tolkien. I think Tolkien probably would have disliked the movies, he was quite curmudgeonly and he had thought a LOT about everything in his books, so changing stuff very likely would have bothered him a lot, especially moving dialogue around between characters.

For me that love shone from everyone in cast,crew and all involved too ...

I like to compare it the first HP movie which came out at the same time. It was flat. Almost a word-for-word adaptation. It’s a great story, but a meh movie. PJ created a perfect adaptation of “Fellowship” by moving into a visual medium what were spoken and vice versa. The later movies were not AS good, but still acceptable adaptations.

@@ktrimbach5771 I think they pretty much nailed it with Fellowship, you can't adapt a work that massive better than that. Most changes make sense, while the other two have both baffling changes and additions. King is almost certainly the worst adaptation-wise.

How true. I saw The Two Towers in theater (IMAX) and I was terribly disappointed. Awful pacing, no character development, no pauses, just climaxes and battles. The Extended Edition however is an absolute masterpiece!

Interesting, though I'm not sure I understand. If he was going to let the elves destroy it, why take it in the first place?

​​@@MamuTVies To keep it safe as it was indestructible. He never went inside Mount Doom in the book and he didn't know how to destroy it.

@@Twiska Ahh I see. Thanks a bunch! I should really give the books another shot.

I would say another consequence is making Arwen's sacrifice a bit confusing and vague as a means to motivate Aragorn.

​@@MamuTVies Andy Serkis reads them on Audible. Very, very good!!

That's another problem with the format. The film has to deal with chronological order because it's cross-cutting between narratives. It couldn't use Tolkien's antiquated structure to tell the story because of the gaps in pacing.

There's also the sense that when we meet Faramir in the book, his character arc is already finished. In the film, on the other hand, we see him face his own shortcomings as a person (temptations of power and a streak of cruelty) and overcome them.

Your post really made me smile. I was introduced to The Hobbit when I was 15. Didn't know that the trilogy existed until a few years later. Then I read The Silmarillion. It's my favorite. After that it I couldn't get enough Tolkien. It's been 50 years since I first picked up The Hobbit. I think that a trip to NZ would perfectly cap off the journey. I'm so happy (and a tad jealous) that you got to experience it. ♥

@@Splucked I’d highly recommend you go. By rights I shouldn’t have been there. I’d booked a cruise to Vanuatu for 2020, it got put back and then totally cancelled. My booking was then transferred to a different itinerary- NZ. I wasn’t happy at the idea but I got over my disappointment and it was an awesome holiday. But for a pesky virus I’d never have been there.

@@andreagriffiths3512 Gotta love serendipity! ☺

@@Splucked most definitely 💕💕💕

Yep And Bean as Sir-Dies-Alot

The entire cast was perfect for their roles. Tolkien would have wanted Lee portraying Gandalf, but as we have all seen, Lee was the ideal actor for Saruman and Mckellen the one for Gandalf.

@@wulfheort8021 Yes. Mckellen's Gandalf is much kinder than what I think tolkien would've envisioned and Lee would have performed.