A lot of the travelling throughout the trilogy takes place at night in the books, but at day in the movies. I guess two reasons. First, glorious landscape shots instead of dark scenes that make the movie quite gloomy. Secind, it's much easier to film during the day.
They were also (mostly) never in such a rush that they didn't have time to eat a snack and take a nap. In fact, the closer that the hobbits got to Mt. Doom, the more they had to stop and rest to try and conserve energy.
Treebeard hearing the voices first is something the Bakshi film got right! In the books Treebeard also says that if he hadn't heard them first he would have stepped on them! 😂
Jackson should have left it like it was in the book. The marsh should not have open flames, but ghost like lights, Gollum says they are candles of corpses, and not to look at them, or follow them. You said Gollum said the battle was when he was young before the Precious came, but he says he was told of the great battle long ago.
Glad you pointed this out. I was going to. In the movie, Gollum says, "don't follow the lights" but there are no lights. In the book, the lights were down in the water with the corpses.
I think LotR is now in the same allegory class as Morte d'Arthur where many authors and screenwriter interpret to story in their own way. This does not detract from Jackson's interpretation; rather it shows the richness of JRRT's work and it's position in our metaphorical and allegorical societal structure.
Originally, after Frodo reminds Gollum his real name, it was going to show the flashback of Sméagol's backstory of how he found The Ring and how it transformed him into Gollum (which Gandalf tells Frodo in the kitchen of Bag End in chapter three of The Fellowship of the Ring) but during the editing, Jackson thought that it slowed down the pace of the movie so he cut it from the theatrical version. He then thought of use it for the Extended Version but then said to Fran Walsh (the producer and co-writer) "You know what? Let's save it for The Return of the King" which is how it ended up in the third movie. On a side note, I think how the order of the scenes in the movie fits the pacing better than how it is in the book as they wouldn't work as smoothly for a movie. Remember that you can take all the time you want in a book but for a movie it needs to have a steady pace so you don't get bored to fall asleep (like Merry and Pippin does to Treebeard's poetry in the next scene with them), therefore you can't drag for too long or be confused on how it is structured, like a bumpy road and you want it to be as smooth as possible.
It's been said that Tolkien was telling the story to be read from a book...and Jackson was telling a story to be experienced on a screen. Had it been for a film, Tolkien may very well have made the same changes. Similar words are rumored to have come from the Tolkien Estate itself.
I loved Gollum in the movies, especially in the second one. Many alterations to characters like Treebeard, Theoden, Aragorn and Faramir caused me quite to dislike the "Two Towers", at least it's the movie I'm least attached to. But the Gollum/Smeagol scenes were brilliant. And they are the most important reason for watching TT again. I like the look of Treebeard but I quite dislike his actions because they go so much against anything written in the books. I would have loved it if PJ had sticked a bit more to his true character.
You have to admit however that the scenes with the magnificent Ents were loooong and draaaaawn out as they should have been. Ho-hum,hmrph....I love Treebeard's 'poet-tree, 😂' I could listen to such a creature forevermore.
I love them both. The fact is that most of the Two Towers, Sam and Frodo are just walking. Currently nearing the end of the Two Towers book, and the latter half takes place during The Return of the King. Adding drama is a little annoying, but makes the chapters about them being miserable while walking and walking and walking something more to watch.
I have officially binged all the LotR you've done. Definitely appreciate your content, and I'm glad to have gotten to discover you by sheer happenstance.
Treebeard was a struggle when Weta Workshop designed him for many reasons. One of them is that Peter Jackson wanted to avoid copying the Ralph Bakshi version which he thought wasn't great and referred him as a "walking, talking carrot" (onsindering his orange skin, I see where he gets it at 😆). Tolien illustrator and concept artist of the movie John Howe have previously in book illustraions avoided to draw him in full as he wasn't sure how much tree-to-man ratio he was going to do ("Is he a man shaped like a tree or is he a tree shaped like a man?"). One of the Weta concept designers Daniel Falconer, who made a lot of the elven designs like Rivendell and Lothloríen, had Treebeard in his head when he read the book as a kid and drew him based on his mind's design, hence how Treebeard was designed. For the close up shots with Merry and Pippin, Treebeard was made into a large animatronic puppet which was operated by several people, two was running the arms, two for swaying him back and forth to make him look like walking and one was radio controlling his head movements and eyes plus a couple of guys walked around holding branches to cast of the shadows on the puppet and Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd to similute movement as Treebeard walks through the forrest. Also was Richard Taylor off-screen yelling "Left! Right! Left! Right!" to guide the rythm off the walk. In addition John Rhys-Davies sat off screen and read Treebeards lines (which he would recorded in post-production, with the voice recording being played through a wooden tunnel to make it more, literally, wooden and echoey, Rhys-Davies wondered at first how an ent should talk as trees don't have lungs, so he decided on speaking on the inhales rather on the exhales). For making the tree bark on Treebeard's skin look realistic, Weta put on euraphane onto acrual trees and brought the molds back to the workshop to make the bark which they put on the puppet. The beard was done as a weave made from air roots and mosses. Also they put in a detail that is hard to see is the shell of a Kaori snail which is unfortunatley an endangered species in New Zealand due to a pest that was introduced by the early settlers, making it rare. They also put real branches on the puppet's body. When Treebeard holds up the Hobbits, Monaghan and Boyd sat on bicyce seats that was in Treebeard's hands, which unfortunatley squished their testicles to the point that Dominic Monaghan thought that'd never thought he was goingt to get kids (if it's true or not is unkknown, as he hasn't been a relationship since his relationship with Evangeline Lilly, his co-star from Lost, who'd later play Tauriel in The Hobbit trilogy, and haven't got any kids yet, Boyd on the other hand have a son named Jack William Boyd, with his wife Alison McKinnon). For the wide shots Treebeard was naturally done as a CGI character, The rendering on Treebeard was so complex that the rendering time took 48 per frame (in rendering time). Since the head wasn't so expressive, Jim Rygel and the computer guys at Weta Digital discussed what to animate. First they were just going to just aimated the eyes and the mouth but after a few mintues, they dropped the idea and decided to just replace the whole head with a CG version to make it as expressive as possible but took in mind that he had to have less expressions compared to other creatures as it'd seem unnatarual if his bark-like skin stretched like skin does so they walked a fine balance how much/little streching his skin does as he talked or gave expressions.
Hah, trusting Gollum because he resqued Frodo? It was clear right away that he didn't want the ring to be lost! :D I still haven't read the books completely, by the way. However, I always did wonder why Gollum was so cheerful and helpful, bringing them to Mordor.
I prefer the book's coverage of this journey. There's more time to explore the interpersonal dynamics of the group, and I enjoy Gollum's frankly sarcastic personality. * * * * * * But in a little while [Gollum] stopped suddenly and sniffed the air doubtfully, hissing as if he was troubled or displeased again. ‘What is it?’ growled Sam, misinterpreting the signs. ‘What’s the need to sniff? The stink nearly knocks me down with my nose held. You stink, and master stinks; the whole place stinks.’ ‘Yes, yes, and Sam stinks!’ answered Gollum. ‘Poor Sméagol smells it, but good Sméagol bears it...' _- The Passage of the Marshes_
I never understood why the film had Treebeard tricked into going to war; it was so contrived. How did the hobbits know where to lead Treebeard to so he could see his toppled "tree friends"? They didn't know Saruman had begun a mass destruction of trees whereas Treebeard, having spoken to Gandalf after his re-appearance, would probably have known exactly that.
Me neither. In the books, Merry and Pippin were a catalyst, the last drop that made a long-simmering pot boil over, whereas the movie Ents were incapable of any action until someone came and made them. When the same pattern repeated in Gondor all over, I felt like howling.
Meriadoc is the one who has a clearer sense of where the two hobbits are in the book, as he was the one who'd spent some time looking at maps in Rivendell. Meriadoc's also the one who is more willing to go into Fanghorn early on, not just because it makes more sense, but because (as a Brandybuck) he's also got some familiarity with old forests. This is a fantastic series, by the way, and I've created a YT account just to comment on this. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for watching! And yes, it’s funny the parallels that Merry draws between the Old Forest and Fangorn. Especially because of their trip earlier on in the book into the Old Forest, they seem to be veterans in terms of forest exploration. 😎😂
This series is very interesting. I never really liked how the film introduced treebeard because he's just sleeping there so it's a one in a million chance that he would be the tree the hobbits climb.
I do have to say I do like watching these videos because as someone who has only seen the films. Its actually surprising when learn that a scene was completely made up and did not appear in the books. I actually assumed that everything we seen in the movie is what happened in the books. That shows how well written this film series is they are integrated so well. Like for example the battle of Helms deep (spoilers but of course everyone probably already knows) the Elves were not there in the books however I did not learn that until after I saw the film and it was shocking. I literally thought it was in the books that elves would show up because it is a perfect parallel to the last Alliance. Elves and Men fighting along side each other against the darkness once more. It felt like something Tolkien would write. It the same story with The Hobbit when it comes to Tauriel, I was shocked that she was made up for the movie because she felt so well integrated and I just assumed that every character we see in the movie was in the book. That just shows how well written a lot of this stuff is.
wow this was illuminating because the appearance of treebeard was always one of my favorite scenes in the films- the character was always something that i think was kind of a brilliant conception but now im really conflicted. i think the "look" of treebeard in the films is superior honestly, but i think jackson's re telling of this whole thing was weak. yes it builds tension but it tracks more that treebeard didnt know about hobbits, because they are constantly overlooked (something that has always triggered the question in my mind, what and who are the hobbits a metaphor for?--if they are a metaphor.) grishnakh chasing them into the forest and then being killed by treebeard is so serendipitous for merry and pippen that it beggars belief, as does treebeard stepping on something and not investigating what he stepped on, which would have cleared up that merry and pippen were not orcs at all. (who steps on a foreign object and doesnt look to see what they stepped on?) the travelling of frodo and co. during the day also in hindsight makes absolutely no sense, since it is pretty common sense to move under the cover of darkness in stealth- i wonder if this was done to keep gollum from seeming super creepy all the time/justify the cgi budget/give andy sirkis more room to flex?- no idea honestly. all these jumbled decisions and 180's from the book are completely nonsensical. great video.
I do not think that these were "jumbled" oder "nonsensical" decisions. The film team really gave intensive thought to all the alterations they made. There were reasons of storyline and pacing, timing and visualisation. We as individuals might not like these decisions. But they were necessary for turning this epic book trilogy into marvellous films. I myself do not like all their changes of plot, timeline or characterisation, but I adored the movies right from the very first time of seeing the Fellowship of the Ring in cinema. They are masterpieces. They would not have been, had they sticked 100% to everything in the books. I just imagined the scene of Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard. After the excitement of escaping the battle the pacing slows down to two hobbits calmly ambeling through Fangorn, eating, joking, complaining a bit about the stiff air, climbing the rock shelf, looking out into the world and the sky, enjoying the spell of sunshine and having light conversation. And then Treebeard talking to them and getting to know them and telling them about the Ents and making new rhymes. This is a joy to read - but I think it would be ghastly boring to watch.
Despite the changes made to the original work, you know it's a good adaptation when you can't remember which happened in the movies vs the books, and don't really care in most cases. The extended versions that is... I'm in my 40s and read the books as a teenager, so the books are my first exposure and cannon. I was probably just happy to have a TV with a remote at the point when I read the books, so the modern movies were barely conceivable at that point. I didn't care for the change made to Frodo overall, and the fight with Sam over the food was maybe the only time while watching it for the first time, I said, wait a minute. That wouldn't have happened. I can go through scene by scene and find other things I don't care for, but overall, I can't remember which is which unless I've read or listened to the books again recently. Compared to almost any adaption in the last few years, A+. Much like the author of the book World War Z and how he felt. I don't consider the newest LOTR or WOT part of the original author's work. Thanks for your videos analyzing the books vs movies.
In my humble opinion, when doing a movie of a book series that has been so popular, should try their utmost to stick to the book. It does have one benefit however, that when someone watches the movies and recognize the differences, it inevitably seems to cause many to research even further into the story almost ad nauseum.😜
The more times I read the books and watch the movies, the more I appreciate how Jackson made choices that both respected the core mythology of LotR and made them good films. My heart says this is what JRRT hoped for when creating a modern mythology
I do have a love for these movies for the source material that DID make it into them, but I think Peter Jackson can be a bit hacky. The scene where Treebeard literally man handles the massive iron gate of Isengard being left out was, I thought, a dam tragedy.
The ents were my favorite part about the books when I read them in 2001. I was so disappointed with how they were left out in so many ways in the movies, with the removal of quick beam and a lot of their time together. I think the worst change to the what’s in the movie though, hands down, is that the creatures most known for “not being hasty” make a hasty decision to attack Isengard. In the books, the decision is somber, and they know they are likely going to all die, and yet they decide to anyway. And the song!
I feel like their hasty decision is still in line with how they were presented in the books. Treebeard had never thought of Saruman doing such a thing, and now that he realizes the grave nature of what's going on, he decides to make a bit of a hasty decision. I mean, after seeing so many of your friends dead and industrialized by one of your supposed friends, that would have to hurt more than anything. He also says before he leaves that they likely will not return, so that mixed with the wonderful music I think portrays the emotion from the book very well, although it is maybe more epic seeming than it was in the book. I would say his retaliation was still in line for the character, as Treebeard of course had a VERY deep love for nature and all things beautiful and would want to do something about such hatred right away. That's just my opinion, however.
The ents are one of Tolkien’s most original things and one of my favorite parts of LotR, and Jackson did ‘em dirty. He passed over almost all of it, then made the battle - one chapter - most of the film.
I disagree. Saving some of the best parts of the Ents to discover for those who choose to read the books after being inspired to do so from watching the movies is a good thing in my book.
I prefer the relationship between Frodo and Gollum in the book but it wouldn’t have worked so well in a movie setting I don’t think. Jackson made the right choice.
I was really hoping to see, on video, the "fighting style" of the Ents that was described in the text. Tolkien wrote that the damage an Ent brings is like watching the countless years of root growth and destruction through seemingly impenetrable objects, except said destruction takes place in a matter of seconds, rather than centuries.
As a long-time fan of the book, I definitely felt confused by the changes to how Treebeard dealt with Merry and Pippin. Treebeard, as one of the very oldest entities in Middle-Earth (bar Tom Bombadil, who's referred to as the Eldest by Elrond) had a lot of confidence in his own ability to slowly, carefully, and methodically assess the strange new creatures he managed not to mistake for orcs! The idea that this figure would simply defer judgement to a young whippersnapper of a Wizard seemed bizarre to me! And narratively for the movie, there was just no need for suspense or tension at that moment, we'd had plenty of that with the battle and escape. it would definitely have worked better with a softer, easing of tension and showing Treebeard conversing with the hobbits just a she did in the book.
Gollum cant eat the bread because magic. Just like he can't bear the elven rope, and in the book, Sam and Frodo speculate on if the rope is actually hurting Gollum, though it's not tied tight, but because it was made by elves. Gollum says in the movie they travel by night, sleep in the day, likewise in the book, and they do both in both.
I always felt that Gollum's apparently genuine pain from the rope was nonsensical. He wasn't an intrinsically evil being and there's no reason why elvish items would be any more harmful to him than the hobbits.
@@FoolsMasque “Frodo: 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.' Gandalf: 'Pity? It's pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.' Frodo: 'I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.' Gandalf: 'So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien
A deleted bit from the film would have payed homage to the Treebeard's list of creatures saying "You're not on the old list.". This was cut probably due to pacing.
Ah yes, pacing.....which would have made sense were it not for the additional 45 minutes of material, not in the books, that Jackson added to The Two Towers.
Jackson still showed the arc from bad to good and it works well on film and then it develops. I feel like as long as the themeing is the same it's fine. Sometimes details change.
I think these changes are fine. It's a change for a visual medium. We have to see these things not be told about them. Also I love that the Ents are walking trees. Again because of the visuals.
One problem with the movie version is Treebeard thinking they are Orcs when they look nothing like Orcs. Still, I love both versions. Each is appropriate for its purpose.
I liked Treebeard's physical depiction in the movie. My imagination couldn't have come up with anything better. I wish there had been MORE Treebeard and more Pippen and Merry, but that wouldn't have worked for the movie run-time or continuity. When I first saw the movies 20 years ago, @Fact or Fantasy, I was so upset at all the changes. The books are still superior works of art but I've reconciled myself to the movies. And sometimes the movies are better. Gandalf and Co. entering Edoras and Gandalf casting away Saruman's influence over Théoden was waaaaaaay better constructed in the movie than in the book. When I went back and read the chapter after having seen the movie, I thought Tolkien's scene was rather dull and lackluster. Score one for Philippa Boyens.
Agreed! I like how the Ents look. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen a better alternative, but making them look tree-ish just makes sense to me. Plus, I saw the movies first and THEN read the books so I love both formats. Obviously certain things fit better in different mediums. And yea, some of Theoden’s best lines aren’t even ones pulled from Tolkien, but rather Boyens’ work. 👀
How dare you use facts and have an unbiased opinion on the differences between the books and movies ! First time coming across your videos and I’d have to say this is some great LOTR content.
I find PJ's overall handling of the Ents underwhelming but given the time constraints, this was - unfortunately - something that could be reduced without severely impacting the main storyline. - That said, though, I mightily disapprove of tricking Treebeard into the war with Saruman, that should have been the Ents' own decision. Another issue I have with this part of the movie is changing the wonderful creepiness of the Dead Marshes into a cheap jumpscare.
Books are more about style and consciousness, films about visuals and structure. The book is better IMO, but the film is adapted to work for the screen. They're both fantasy, but otherwise are two very different genres, while the book is about a piece of history in middle earth, an adventure through a fantastic world and everything to do with it, and is much more character driven, the film is much more plotty and action-blockbuster based with the elements of the books being more of a backdrop. If you're a film fan and don't really care about the depth, the film is great - but if you want something more, the books are vastly superior. In terms of book and film, both have plot, but the films are more scene by scene, with the characters existing in the string of scenes, where the book reverses this, and the characters drive the scenes that come and the flow of the story feels much less plotty/contrived, and more organic. While there is some development in the films, the characters are basically the same thing throughout, just with some trauma or a change of clothing; the book really emphasizes the change building up, and the contrast between the early chapters and the Scouring of the Shire is a great show of the change they went through. Not trying to criticize the film as a film. Film and book are two different art forms, and while there are books that have the same sort of plotty structure as a screenplay (a lot of modern indie authors do that), the great books better explore the medium, the consciousness of the characters, the pacing, and the word style the page and imagination allows. Film has one POV (the camera), and is more about visuals and action. More artistic filmmaking goes beyond this, but films that do that like 2001 and Blowup aren't exactly going to light up box-office sales like something such as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, Avatar, or some Disney film will. Film and TV tends to be quite rigid in structure, they're making shows more like books these days (it's near impossible to replicate al the elements) and look how much Twitter screeches and complains about it - they have different expectations, and often a different audience - a lot of TV fans don't read.... anything!
FYI, the Ents are the entelechies, the agent/power that bring potential into actual Being, according to Aristotle. They 'herd Hurons' which are neurons. Middle-earth is the material brain. Hobbits are habits, the four main Hobbits are the Cardinal Virtues. Frodo is Temperance, Sam- Fortitude, Pippin- Prudence and Merry- Justice. Gollum is Intemperance, thus calling Frodo Master. The Wizards are the Intellectual Virtues according to Aristotle's 'Ethics'. Sauron is Artificial Intelligence, and Saruman has taken control of Academia, he is in the image of socialist John Dewey. Worm Tongue is his slave, the Marxist teacher unmanning and perverting our children. Tom and Goldberry are the fallen, transmigrated spirits of the Trees of Light, Tom is the fallen Rational Will, and Goldberry the fallen Rational Intellect. Tolkien's mythology is an epic contest between Aquinas and Descartes. This is all explained in great detail in the recently published book- 'Mount Doom, The Prophecy of Tolkien Revealed'.
Next to the changes he made to Faramir, I believe the changes he made to the Ents were Peter Jackson's biggest middle finger to the fans of the books.....and was about the time I lost all interest in seeing the 3rd movie in the cinema.
awesome comparisons! Im wondering if you'll do something similar with Rings of Power? I know its popular to complain about it, but with tolkein beingg inherently interpretive(translation of translation of edited and addendum-ed manuscript written from awestruck eye-witness memory), i think it makes sense for things to sometimes not make sense. what i would like to understand with your help, is where those bits of nonsense lie...
Maybe in the future when it’s not such a touchy topic. Plus, I’m not as knowledgeable about first and second age lore, but definitely something I can dive deeper into when I’m freed up time wise after this series. 👀
@@factorfantasyweekly I would watch them for sure. A feast of character and time line changes and at least 1 hour explanation of Tolkiens lore in comparison to every minute of the series.
There is kind of a boring trope that I've noticed in several movies, including the Two Towers, and that's some person or group of people decides that they want to remain aloof to some conflict and along comes one individual who decides that he or she needs to stir the pot, maybe it's a character who was once part of the former group of idlers. But I've seen it done so many times that it's lost impact. The Two Towers, Avatar, Rogue One, etc. That's not to say I dislike those movies as a whole, but the character motivations become disinteresting when I realize that this is what the films are aiming for. Not to go all conspiracy mode, but I've seen enough Hong Kong films in my lifetime to see the same trope enacted and it has me suspiciously wondering if communist culture is being exported in this way.
