Actually, Gandalf made a dick move about the balrog. He went to solo it too keep all the loot & xp, hence the new gear and rank when he comes back. Sly bastard.
The 'Too many endings' isn't a real problem unless you're in the theater, with a large soda threatening to burst your bladder before they FINALLY get around to the end credits.
9 - Gimli gets a fantastic ending, though. "Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf..." --- "What about side by side with a friend?" --- "Aye. I could do that." Feeeelz
@Christopher McMillan But he isn't a badass in the books though, he is just good in the books. While in the movies he is both badass and funny, because he is awesome.
I didn't like that line because it's so obvious they are never going to kill off a main character. We already know these characters are invincible, they've already survived 3 huge battle sequences without even getting a scratch on them, why should the battle at the black gate be any different?
@@spaceace4387 That's fair. Me I get misty eyed every time. I suppose for me it's about the concept of dying fighting alongside a former enemy whom with you have formed a bond.
I wish the movie didn't leave out the part about Saruman standing at the gates of Bag End. Plus it would've been a nice interesting touch to see the Baggins birthday party being set up. In the Hobbit trilogy really could've been cut diwn to two movies max. Too much was added that wasn't necessary that was supposed to be it's own story. Hell even in LOTR Bilbo tells Frodo he had his own story. I remember awhile back Peter Jackson got in hot water not just with New Zealand for not paying certain bills for filming but also the Tolkien estate because of the way he portrayed some of the characters like Legolas.
Too true The original cut felt so unfulfilled without having Saruman show up one last time I mean considering Jackson switched him around than the original books ending with him at the shire being killed off The extended version is far superior
So the whole Frodo/Sam friend relationship thing gets a bad rap, but what most people don't realize is the time this book was written and the context it was written. JRR Tolkien was a WW1 vet, where he's been in the trenches of war with other soldiers fighting a seemingly desperate situation. So they may have had a lot of vulnerable moments, and I think the Sam/Frodo friendship really captures that. When you constantly fear for your life, you would want to cling to whatever positive force you could. Also another thing to address which I've never hear anyone talk about is that Hobbits are more childlike in nature. The books reference it a lot more. And children are more likely to be close to another. I mean in the scene where Gandalf gets angry at Bilbo and Bilbo starts to wimper, you see Gandalf bend down and give him a comforting hug. Like an adult to a child. I'm surprised I've never hear anybody make a case about that at all. Anyways I said enough I think.
The thing is, they are going through more than most ever will. They have to leave their homes behind on a journey they do not expect to survive. They don't even fully hope to accomplish what they're trying to do. Not only that, they go through battles, lose Gandalf, the one who could truly lead. Then Boromir falls into desperation and attacks Frodo. THEN they have to leave the others, alone in shitty mires. And Gollum comes into the picture, a creature Frodo knows is close to himself, and shows what Frodo will become if he gives in to the Ring's power. They have to follow a psychotic creature through lands of darkness and despair. The days fade, so ''winter depression'' kicks in (It's a thing in northern countries, for real). They barely see anyone else, are betrayed and led to the lair of a giant, inbreeding, monstrous spider of darkness. Finally going through the land of the dark lord and up the almost vertical slope of a mountain. AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT! The Ring itself. The Ring drives Frodo into depression, tempting him at all times, weighing him down, and every step towards Mordor makes it worse. How could he NOT seek ''gay'' comfort in a faithful friend? It has nothing to do with being overly gay, but to seek comfort in his only friend who's following him through it all, sharing his burden as much as he can. And for Sam's part, he's watching his best friend go through the journey with a terrible thing that he must carry alone. It's just silly that people think they are too gay without being gay, just because they are closer than anyone would be in a normal everyday life. Their story is meant to show how we need friends to make it through struggles.
Number 2 is he main reason for why the extended editions are the definitive and, in my opinion, the only way to get the true Lord of the Rings experience
The multiple endings had some of the best emotional moments in the trilogy. Aragorn telling the hobbits “you bow to no one” Frodo saying goodbye to Sam, merry and pippin. Sam coming home to his family.
The endings are great, but it's the way they're edited that drags them down. Several of them look like they're about to cut to the credits, but then they keep going, faking out the audience. If they'd been shot and edited in a way that didn't make it look like the movie was about to end then I don't think people would be left feeling annoyed.
Russell Brown that’s the thing though, they’re all endings. Endings to different stories. The plot of the movie ends when the ring is destroyed, giving Gollum’s story closure as well. Minas Tirith wraps up the story for Aragorn and Arwen, and for the lands of men (as for Gimli and Legolas, they get more in the books but in the movies their story basically gets closure at the black gate). The story of Merry, Pippin, and Sam ends when they reach the Shire and settle in again. However, despite being present for each of those, Frodo never feels closure. Everyone around him seems happy and content, yet he for some reason cannot share in that for more than a short moment. His story is too tightly tied to the Ring, just like Bilbo, and he will never feel peace in Middle Earth again for as long as he lives. It is only at the Grey Havens, when he finally steps onto the grey ship and off the shores of Middle Earth, that he finally feels the weight truly lifted from his shoulders, the influence of the Ring gone, his story complete. In a way, the many different endings are a buildup of Frodo’s realization that he no longer belongs in this world, and it’s beautiful.
Plus we have to remember that this is inspired by older times (ie medieval) men used to share beds as signs of respect completely non-sexually. For example if a lord had a respected dignitary or fellow noble over for negotiations he'd offer the use of the bed with him. Homosexuality just wasn't part of the dialogue due to the morals of the day.
Tiny point, the reason that Gandalf was able to fall into a lake beneath the roots of the mountain and then end up on top of the mountain is called The Endless Stair. It`s is an epic stairway built by the dwarves that stretches from the deepest point in Middle Earth to the highest point. Which is the peak of Zirakzigil and the ruins of Durin`s Tower where the two had their showdown.
+popecorkyxxiv They did have plans to include the endless stair even going so far to as to draw concept art for it but ultimately it was cut for the sake of time and money.
The closeups on Gandalf in the beginning are actually amazing- because Ian Mckellan portrays the fear Gandalf fears so well- it is what makes Sauron scary- the way this wizard looks so stern and serious the more he learns about the situation. I think the closeups are the right call there.
iforgot87872 Iforgot what the hell are you doing revisiting this video? I didn’t expect to find you here. Its strange that I’ve watched so many of your Ytps that I recognize your channel name. I can’t think any of the Thedon scenes seriously anymore because of those fucking ytps I laugh hysterically every time I rewatch lord of the rings and hear Thedon saying “I am king of Rohan”
I like the closeups, especially during intense scenes. It's so much easier to see the characters emotions, and it brings a different feel than from other movies. It makes it feel different and special somehow.
Ehhh, be less pedantic please. This wasn't explained or clarified at all in the movies, and people are justified in considering him human. And he did just disappear in the cinematic. You need the extended version to see him get stabbed and fall off Orthanc.
Ffs, why is everyone thinks they were gay? Sam was sacrificial, brave, guardful, clever, he was best friend that Frodo could have near him. About bread, btw. WTF? It WAS the moment when Sam realized: "Fuck it. I will follow them, even though he doesnt want to, because he is my friend". Sam realized that Frodo was not posessed by the ring, it didnt want to lead Frodo back to Sauron. It was Gollum who set it all up. Gollum was the real threat.
Because it really does play out like a romance. It hits a lot of the same marks a love interest would have in a movie, and out of context, it really does look like two gay hobbits in love. Not the intention, obviously, but when you look at those scenes again with the idea of a gay love interest, yeah it reaaaally looks and sounds like a cheesy romance.
@@xBloodxFangx Well, thats why we HAVE context - all movies. Because noone sane would pull these scenes out of context to interprete them in own way. But yeah, not intentional. I just hate that people try to find gayness in everything these days (and back in those days where review was done)
Yeah I agree. While watching the movie, I never thought of them as gay or acting gay towards each other. Brokeback mountain and so many other movies that portray gayness have similarities while to sam and frodo have nothing of that written material.
Well, I'll TRY to explain the eagle thing by referring to the book. In the book, the whole reason they decided to go with Gandalf's 'walk to Mordor' plan was because the Eye of Sauron was supposedly so all over the place that it would have spotted any attempt by any group of notable size to even get close to Mordor. They even said that it noticed Boromor going towards Imladris, but didn't do anything because 'he was only one small traveller, on an errand of little importance'. But afterwards he was 'now a member of the Ring's company and peril will grow for every league they travel under the open sky'. The Eye would have noted when a big force of Eagles took off, and REALLY noticed that they were carrying the Ring. In the books, Gandalf was ridiculously paranoid about keeping the Ring hidden at all times, and never to let anybody even see or handle it if at all possible. On the rare occasions when anybody DID handle it, the narrative made clear that Sauron could sense it - and only putting it back under wraps fast allowed it to remain hidden. (The notable exception was Sam - who wore it inside Mordor several times while trying to rescue Frodo from the Orc tower) So if a big gang of eagles took to the sky, carrying the Ring, Sauron would have known that the jig was up. Before the Eagles could have gotten to Mount Doom (and yes, it would still have taken them a day or two at least), Sauron would have beefed up defenses around Orodruin. Anyone who has played Starcraft knows that if you are informed in advance what units the enemy is building/planning to attack with, you can build countering units that will wipe out the enemy and leave them totally at your mercy. By all accounts, Sauron had a large number of those flying creatures - we only saw nine of them at a time because they were steeds for the Black Riders. Every time one of them got killed, the riders were given another. So Sauron had a stash of them ready to go. And you can bet your patookus he'd have had every one of them circling Mount Doom, mounted with archers, ready to turn the Eagles to chum the moment they tried getting close, or even just have them catch the ring if the eagles tried to 'drop it into the volcano'. And before you say 'but the eagles were a lot tougher than Sauron's flying beasts', again, check the book. In the book, the only reason the black riders fled was because Sauron ordered them to race to Mount Doom. At that point, Frodo was wearing the Ring, and Sauron spotted him at once, sending the Nazgul immediately. In the book, the Riders and the Eagles never actually fought, so we have no idea how the fight would have gone. All the scenes where the eagles were beating up the Riders was just non-canon Jackson-ism. Does that mean I'm disagreeing? Not really - I agree that the eagles were a cop-out, even in the books. A get out of jail free card they played every time things looked too bleak. But the way the books portrayed the Eye of Sauron, and how well defended Mordor was, the impression was very clear that there was no way the Company could jump onto the Eagles, Valhalla it over to Mordor, and just drop the Ring into Orodruin without resistance. In Return of the King (the BOOK, not the movie), Gandalf also made this clear. 'If Sauron had used all his power to guard Mordor so that none could enter, and then bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded. Neither Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than close at home.' By keeping the company ground-based and as hidden as possible, rather than raising them up on flashy birds where Sauron would spot them at once, they kept the Eye from finding them. Does this cover all the plot holes? Nope. But it does explain in some measure why Tolkein wrote it the way he did.
if they did take the eagles they would need to deal with A the nazgul B the archers with flaming arrows C the smoke from mount doom.. and D the heavy ring right withing saurons sight. amazing youtuber knowledge huh
@@mrhalfwit972 A B and C they still have to deal with after the ring is dunked. Evil armies and terrain features don't disappear when the big baddie dies. D is probably the most plausable, but they'd need to explain it in the movie or it just wouldn't make sense.... at which point just have Gondor's army rescue Frodo. They need to mop up the evils of Mordor anyway otherwise they'll have decades of smaller wars eating away at them until some new great and powerful evil arises.
@@forcebrand4678 Sorry. But anybody who claims to be a fan of LOTR cannot 'not consider' the books which are supposed to have been the source material for the movies ;). They did a decent job of sticking to the source material for Fellowship. A mediocre job for Two Towers. And a HORRIBLE job of it for Return of the King. If they had done a better job of it? Then poor Critic wouldn't have had to pretend to be confused over it for this video....
I think the eagle issue is stated in the Hobbit book. The eagles aren´t gods, they´re a race, much like orcs or elves, they can also speak and they tell bilbo, gandalf and the dwarves that they would be shot down before they even got to the montain. The world of LOTR is way more dangerous and filled with more archers than the one in the hobbit so they could´ve been shot down much more quickly. Also the eagles´ lair lies right next to the mountains that the mines are in, so you could say that Gandalf was gonna use the eagles in the first place.
Yep. Logic trumps all. But that being said, the moves aren't the books and the true is vice versa. The movies fail big time in explaining anything. Things happen because film. The film has nothing to do with the novels. It's a spin off something great to make big bucks. There is no care if people get pissed because reasons. How much stuff can we steal from the popular story and make it *cough cough* better? better throw in some relevent material in here and here, just to try to stick to something resembling the original.. add a few special effects, some more *haha* character development AND DONE! Oh there's plot holes, and things happening that make no sense? Bah, its all good. Viewers will fill the blanks for us. We're just showing off our skills at mutilating, I mean perfecting stuff.
+Adrijana Radosevic There were around 200,000 Orcs in Mordor. And nine ring wrath riders all on FelBeasts. The Eagles would be spotted miles away and they would just be shot down by thousands of archers are hunted down by the FelBeasts
+Adrijana Radosevic There were barley any defensively around Mt.Doom in ROTK because Mordor had lost its main army at Mina's Tirth and its remaining 10,000 defenders were drawn to the BlackGate to confront the army of men waiting there. Yes you make a good point about the Nazgul being incapacitated after their defeat in Rivendell but there would still be some 200,000 Orcs in Mordor, and little under halfway through The Two Towers a Nazgul is seen patrolling the marshes on a Fellbeasts, I don't know the exact time of this was but the Fellowship would have had a slim chance at best to slip through, not the mention Saruman had knowledge of their movements and could have known of them coming on the Eagles and warned Sauron
Fun FACT: Christopher Lee was upset about the deletion of his death scene in the theatrical version of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King..... No s***. I'd be p***ed too >:-(
I would be too, especially since Christopher lee went to bat against Jackson for how his death was shot. Jackson wanted him to cry out and Lee was like “....if I’m stabbed in the back, puncturing my lung, there won’t be any noise, I won’t have enough air.” Because Lee was british special forces. It was epically shot and you actually felt him dying even before he hit the spike wheel. And it got freaking cut out!!
I wonder what it would have been like if Sauruman’s death scene was in The Two Towers instead of the Extended Edition of The Return of the King. The theatrical cut of Two Towers that is.
I’ve heard apparently, Christopher Lee was so angry about his scene in The Return of The King getting cut from the Theatrical version, that he actually snubbed the movie’s premiere. I’m not sure if it’s a true story or not, but if it is...then he made the right choice in my opinion.
@@jordirapper My mum actually made a fair point when we were watching that scene a few days ago and I pointed out that it's stupid. She said that Sam probably assumed that Gollum actually ate the bread out of hunger and then blamed it on him, but to discover that he just threw it into the abyss and from the beginning planned it all to frame Sam made him realize just how vicious Gollum is.
@@Igea1000 Even then though, Sam should know that Gollum doesn't like anything Elvish (in his first appearance Gollum is literally bitching and moaning about the Elvish rope tied around his neck) as well as hating ordinarily cooked food, preferring dead ferrets and raw fish, so why would he assume anything other than Gollum simply tossing it over the cliff? He even watched Gollum taste the bread before immediately spitting it out in Two Towers.
@@northchurch753 Yeah, I get your point, but at this point in ROTK they were climbing the mountain with no alternative to eat at all, Gollum couldn't hunt anything for himself. You know, we can all hate some kind of food until we're starving, then we can literally eat anything out of hunger. I think to assume that Gollum would eat lembas bread then is not that unbelievable?
I hated that whole thing, they replaced a great scene from the book with something that undermined the characterization of the three most vital characters.
Saruman wasn't human, he's was a Maiar. Also in the books Saruman lives til after the Ring is destroyed and attacks Hobbiton, but is killed in that battle. Nitpick, I know.
As far as I know the Ring can be dropped anywhere inside Mount Doom but Frodo and Sam end up in Sammath Naur because there is a road up the mountain to it because that's where Sauron forged the Ring.
Hendrik Deputter Also the rings can be destroyed if swallowed by a powerful dragon. That's how some of the other rings were destroyed. But there were less dragons and of lesser power during LoTR.
Number 3 is more of an example of how close male friends used to be back in the time the book was written and the time period it's based on. It wouldn't be uncommon to see two male friends holding hands together or do other stuff we may only nowadays see as small romantic gestures. It was when homosexual scandals and accusations began to surface that males began to distance themselves from each other.
kurvos I think it's more of a case that it's uncommon nowadays to see two straight men be that close, it doesn't necessarily mean one is uncomfortable.
kurvos Again, not necessarily, you can see something that's seems a little odd without feeling uncomfortable by it. You make it sound like it's a huge deal.
kurvos Or it's you overreacting, yeah it's definitely you overeating. Do you really think the world is your enemy? That expecting something different makes you a bad person? Why don't you just accept something for what it is and move on instead of having a stick up your ass about something that's really non-important? We as a species will never find harmony if we keep finding reasons to hate one another.
kurvos That doesn't really add up with what I said... I'm not looking for excuses to blow my shit, you are. That does not, by definition, make me a hypocrite.
kurvos Reasoning? Is that what you were doing? It just seemed to me like you were complaining for the sake of it, turning a small issue like finding two straight guys being incredibly close weird into some huge bigoted issue. Excuse me for giving my personal opinion on the matter, I guess in future I'll know that your opinion is the only one that counts. Also, at point did I imply I was better than you? I was simply trying to show things from my perspective in a calm manner, as is important when trying to have a reasonable debate. But if you're done, that's fine I guess, just a shame you weren't willing to see things from another angle. Toodles. P.S. Love how you tried to take the moral high ground in the end.
So the thing with the lambas bread: I saw it as Sam knew he hadn’t eaten it, but maybe he thought he’d lost it, or it got dropped, ect. So from his perspective Frodo has a reason to be angry. But when he finds it he realises that Gollum tricked Frodo, and so he knows his friend is in danger.
That scene with Sam finding the bread: I actually thought he was more concerned seeing how treacherous and sneaky golum was, and realizing he couldn't just let Frodo be alone with that creature, not so much that he thought "well ermagerd I didn't eat dat bread like I thot ". But that's just what I got from that scene 😉
J. L. D. Yeah. It was about the fact that he realized Gollum did deliberately frame him and most likely had a specific reason for wanting Sam to be driven off by Frodo. I love Doug Walker and all but sometimes I think he misinterprets things that are kind of obvious.
He never turned around at all in the books either, but followed Frodo. That's why he was on hand to prevent Frodo from being eaten by Shelob. He would never have left. It was a very bad decision by Jackson to add this when he could just as easily have shown him sneaking after them, in a brief reversal of roles with Gollum. Of course this just makes the scene even stupider.
Certain changes were made, to increase the drama in the films. After all, two Hobbits versus a giant spider is a much easier fight than Sam fighting Shelob alone. Plus, the separation shows how corrupt Gollum has truly become by this point, heightening his appearance at Mount Doom even further. Similarly, Jackson and the writers changed Faramir a great deal, because Tolkien wrote him as someone who would refuse the Ring's power without a second thought. To establish the inherent evil of the Ring, it has to be something even the purest of souls would fall victim to...otherwise, anyone could use it to defeat Sauron if they were pure enough.
Yes, it is OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that Sam isn’t coming to some revelation that he didn’t really eat the bread that he had no memory of eating. He had given up at that point and left because Frodo told him to. He had lost his resolve. Seeing the bread gave him that resolve back. It reminded him that that sonofabitch evil Gollum framed him so he could get Frodo alone to kill him and take the ring, dooming all of Middle Earth. Sam gets really pissed and decides he needs to kick some ass.
When sam sees the bread in crumbs he knows that SMEAGOL was the one who purposely threw it off the mountain. It wasn't that he realized he didn't eat it. He realizes that smeagol was purposely trying to antagonize sam to get frodo by himself so he could take the ring.
@@raferalstonisgoat4457 He knew it already. Seeing the crumbs shouldn't have given him this sudden burst of motivation to go help Frodo. He already knew Gollum was putting him against Frodo, Sam should have gone back to him as soon as he was cast out instead of waiting to find the bread. Let's face it, that scene was oh there for dramatic purpose and doesn't really make a lot of sense.
guyverjay.... Very true, and that is not the only part he misinterpreted. He said Frodo told Sam to leave because he believed Sam had eaten the bread. Nope, he told Sam to leave because Gollum convinced him that Sam wanted the ring, and when Sam said he could hold it for just a while, Frodo was overcome by the jealousy of the ring. When Sam found the bread, he realized that everything was a plot orchestrated by Gollum to separate the two. He realized that Smegal was actually back to being Gollum and that Frodo was in immediate danger that he was unaware of. That is why the moment was important and why Sam had an instant change of heart.
By far my favorite aspect of the entire story is sam and frodo's friendship. I don't look at the way it's done in the movies as homosexual, it's just a form of admiration and loyalty toward one another. friendships should certainly be about the care you have for the other person, it shouldn't have to be romantic to be that way.
Thing is, relationships between men vary in by culture. In other parts of the world it is perfectly normal for two men who are friends to greet each other with a kiss for example. In various Middle-Eastern countries, men holding hands while walking together as friends is normal too and not consider homosexual at all. And homosexuality is very frowned upon rather heavily in many places over there. So I don't take any issue with how Sam and Frodo interact. They're hobbits for one, and this is a totally different world with different cultures and logic.
There's nothing wrong with adding a humorous side to a character. It Indeed lights things up if done properly. The problem, however, is that they reaaaaally overdid it. For example, in the drinking scene they could've made him just fall asleep on the table while angrily mumbling, admitting the fairly stupid situation his hardheaddedness got him into. Instead they went the slapstick route.
I disagree with #1. The ring is like a beacon of bright light for Sauron, so if the ring was high in the air, it would be a huge blip on his radar and he would have seen it right away and sent the nazguls or whatnot after them. Nobody fucks with the nazguls - not even eagles.
+Claus Jensby Madsen The eagles stopped and fought the Nazgul in the last battle of Return Of The King, Arwen killed one of their mounts and the most powerful of them, and Aragorn defeated them all single handedly in the first movie. Also Sauron was looking directly at the ring at the end of the saga and still didn't saw it, so all of what you said is nonsense.
He saw it. Also, you meant see. But the fact is, they were fairly isolated at that point and it would have taken a while for servants of Sauron to reach them. He was too weak to manifest a corporeal form, so him seeing it and him getting it, are not the same thing.
+Roberta Tallienne The Nazgul were there, later, when Frodo uses the ring Sauron perceives him and sends the Nazgul to get him. The scene when Frodo is directly under the light of the Eye has always confused me, Sauron should have seen the ring, but when Frodo hides he's like "Oh, it was nothing. Hey, an army!" So no, Sauron didn't saw it. And I think I meant saw.
But that's never established in the movies, in fact the Maiar are not even mentioned. As far as movie-going audiences are concerned, Saruman is just a very old, powerful and wise human. Same goes for Gandalf.
@@russellbrown6888 at the same time, Gandalf states that he has walked the earth for "300 lives of men" indicating he is either immortal like the Elves or extremely long lived. So while it is never established that he is a Maia, it's at least implied that he isn't actually human.
Russell Brown Yeah right because him coming back to life after a tour through time and space is what a human can do in this low magic medieval setting lmao
"Fantasy novel" you're splitting hairs if you're suggesting a wizard couldnt prolong his own life. What was that thing called again, The philosopher's stone? 🤔
@@satanbrony9235 I could find 8 reasons why it would have worked at least when we only consider the movie logic. They should have established it better why they cant fly in and not show them easily taking out Fellbeasts like it was no biggie. But i guess some people just want to live in their own fantasy world where lotr is a flawless movie.
@@Jebu911 I'm sorry, did you forget about the massive catapults and arrows that would shoot them down? Also no, nobody is saying lotr is a flawless movie. However, I will concede that the movies should have done better to explain this.
Maybe if you disguise them as those creatures the Ringwraiths were riding and have everyone wear black cloaks? Don't know if that would work but it would be fun.
It's a little strange to me especially because it devalues friendship, and makes it look like romantic love is inherently more valuable. As someone who has tried dating his friends, I can tell you right now that many friends aren't meant for romantic relationships.
No the eagle thing is complete bull shit. They were able to turn up in the end because Saruon's power was broken and the forces of Mordor were in complete disarray. If they showed up carrying the ring they'd have faced the nazgul at their full power and the witch king himself who they had no way of harming. Then add in trebuchets, and catapults knocking them out of the air. Further since the Eagles are semi divine like Gandalf himself Sauron it would have been enough to get Sauron off his ass and into the fight and he'd have swatted them out of the air.
Paranormal Encyclopedia Eugh, I'm so sick of people making excuses for this bullshit. Sure. The eagles couldn't have taken them straight into Mordor, but why the ever-loving fuck couldn't they have taken them, say, to Minas Tirith? And skipped several months of travel and obstacles when they clearly need to destory the ring asap? Please, come up with another convoluted reason to excuse it, I'm dying to hear it.
11) Just Letting Gandalf Die [] 2:10 10) Those Bajillion Endings []4:21 9) Gimli's Idiot Moments [] 6:57 8) Legolas's Perfect Moments [] 9:14 7) Those Close-Up Shots [] 11:38 6) Denethor [] 13:16 5) I'm Not Dead! [] 16:50 4) Arwen's Life Is Now Tied To The Fate Of The Ring [] 19:27 3) Frodo And Sam's Gayness [] 21:33 2) Saru ... Who? [] 25:09 1) Those Eagles That Could Have Stopped Everything [] 28:05
12) the not-so-jolly-or-merry Elf, Elrond. 13) "Took a little tumble off the cliff" 14) WAY too dramatic 15) Aragorn: the king without any kingly personality 16) The Ring as a drug (seriously, the animated version of Return of the King had a better interpretation of the Ring) 17) The movie was done out-of order (Shelob was in Two Towers, NOT Return of the King) 18) No Tom Bombadill, no Black Willow, no Scouring of the Shire 19) "THROW MEE!" (So politically incorrect.) 20) As good as the movie is, it STILL pales in comparison to the book.
21) Why is Galadriel so creepy? Sure, she was supposed to be creepy in that scene where Frodo offers her the Ring, but that's it. In the movie, she's creepy ALL the time.
Vojtěch Korhoň Well Bombadil does give Merry a special dagger that can harm the Nazgul, which Merry uses to help kill the Witch-King, but that's about it.
how about that bridge is broken, weakened and could still collapse? but no, add more weight to the edge of it to save one member, why not risk the fate of middle earth for the sake of Gandalf? it's not like Frodo could do the job without him
@@KingGhidorah777 Yes maybe you miss the point where Orcs start shooting at them and then them runing into the forrest becouse if they stayed in the open at night they would be killed.
A balrog attached to his feet? I'm sure it couldn't QUITE be so... Or Gandalf would snap in half! Besides, the problem that Critic mentioned wasn't about if they *could* do it or nor, but instead why didn't they *even make an attempt at it!!*
+Berta Vierlein Yeah, I think that Sam thought he was possessed by the ring and that's why he would ate the bread and wouldn't remember it, so he left to prevent himself from hurting Frodo, but when he saw that he didn't eat the bread he realised that it was set up by Gollum so he went back in order to save Frodo.
Ohhh, I think I got it now. The realization was that Gollum didn't steal the bread to EAT it! Of course he didn't "like" any cooked food or elvish stuff, but everything tastes good to a starving man. Sam thought he was just being selfish, not plotting murder. I mean, he should've realized when Gollum pulled the whole "crumbs on his jacket'ses!", but Sam wasn't ever so sharp
On top of that, this gives Sam another realization of just how AWFUL Gollum is, that he's willing to throw away *rare elvin bread* just to get Frodo alone with him. Sam left Frodo alone with the worst creature to ever be alone with, and Sam fell directly into the trap of leaving his sole responsibility. The bread moment was a time for Sam get a grip on himself and go stop Gollum.
I have never seen any other edition other than the extended edition, so when number 2 started up, I was so confused, sitting there like "but he falls onto a spiky waterwheel!"
Not Revising Yeah they literally neglect to show any of that in the cut version. We see them arrive at Isengard, disregard Saruman almost entirely, and then Pipin finds the black crystal ball and then they leave. That's it.
You only watched the four-and-a-half hour long version of the movie? I would never even have time to watch the extended editions of any or all of them.
Bookhead714 I've haven't watched the cut down versions since I discovered the extended versions. They're so perfect that you feel like they're over too quickly. I would never in my life watch the short versions again.
I started boycotting movies 20 years ago so I didn't see these in the theater. I did see #1 cinema version, then they came out with the EE and I told my wife not to waste anymore money on the theatricals. IIRC Chris Lee was interviewed on one of the extra disks and wasn't too happy with being cut out either.
@@UltimateGamerCC they also probably represent the “hand of god” aiding the protagonists. I think they’re directly in the service of the main god but I may be remembering incorrectly.
@@pantasticlaire3966 As far as I recall the only time Eru actually did something in LotR was when he brought Gandalf back. The eagles serve Manwë, however, who is basically the leader of the Valar.
+Maeve Sundberg WAUGH Not "currently", pretty much always. When it first came into use in the 70s it meant a self-insert by the author, but it quickly came to mean what you said.
Put back? For the cut? Wasn't it that they gathered again after a year or so to actually shoot the scenes for the extended editions? It's what I remember from the DVD extras.
@Christopher McMillan very little research, on you need with the LotR movies is to read the books, that a lot of the things hes critiquing is simply from the books or takes 5 minutes to understand why, elves... were not there in the first place, Legolas scenes were just meant for cool tricks like a magician to generation aww moments, so yeah this guy just need to understand the why? and how? and so what? to start trying to answer the questions himself XD
The reason the eagles cant bring the ring to mordor is really simple. You dont even need to read the book to understand it. The giant eye would have seen them coming a mile away, would have sent the nazgul on the felbeasts, and all of the archers in mordor to kill the eagles. And just like that, he would have the ring. On foot, they dont see the hobbits coming.
One theory is Gandalf wanted to use the eagles, but couldn't until they got past Saruman's spies via the mountain. Him saying "Fly you fools" would have been meant to be taken literally.
+Luna Zet yeah, their point of view is that the human got themselves on that shit (corrupted by power etc) so they have to get rid of the ring themselves. It's the same reason why gandalf isn't using much magic, he has been sent to earth to "guide" the human, not to do everything in their place.
I'm no NC fan, but even he made good points that the Nazgul can't stop the Eagles. Gandalf in the movie used his light magic to scare their flying beasts away, he could easily do that! And Since in the battle at Pelennor, Mordor was throwing everything they had at the Free Folk, do you think he has another 1000 flying beasts he for some stupid reason didn't want to use and was hiding them for future use? Those beasts on film were all Sauron had of them. *The Eagles didn't even need to fly into Mordor. Just drop the Fellowship off at Gondor. With Boromir alive. With the Fellowship intact. So they have months to rally Gondor and Rohan to attack Sauron before he even realized what was happening.* Then Sauron would be so caught off guard he'd have to pull all his unprepared forces to deal with the Free Folk, that there would be less guards guarding Cirith Ungol so Frodo will be less likely to be spotted, and less tired from trekking through weeks of wilderness with Gollum and Orcs to watch out for, and less PTSD from having seen Gandalf "die" (as far as he knows) and Boromir betray him. With that mental fortitude he just might have enough willpower to resist the Ring at Mt. Doom... you know how in the canon Frodo FAILED to the point Illuvatar had to pull a stupid Deus ex Machina just to get that Ring to fall (Tolkien himself said so)?
You mean Gondor and Rohan should have combined their forces and attacked a group of fortresses that were located in a mountain range? Behind which Sauron had been amassing his forces for the past 50 years and getting ready for war? That is the dumbest thing imaginable. That would have also left Isengard and Saruman open to pillage Rohan at will.
CrabTastingMan the witch king destroys gandalf's staff. He wasn't present when gandalf makes them retreat, plus hundreds of human archers would have attacked them if they didnt. The light was more of a distraction than a harm for them
I always kind of felt like they were similar to a "separate nation". Maybe they could have some sympathy for the plight of all these people, and they might help out in some cases, but they weren't interested in forming an army on their behalf to fight their battles for them. Like if a neighboring country was in the middle of a civil war and you felt for one side and would rescue someone if you saw them, but like heck are you signing up your children to go over there and fight their fight. We never really see much of the eagles, so we can't really know how 'invested' they were in this whole fight.
Fan theory: Gandalf's plan had always been to travel in the direction of the eagles, but kept the plan secret until they were close enough in case someone got captured and would reveal the plan. Once they travel through the mines of moria though, they meet the balrog and at the moment he's hanging on the cliff side, he quickly spills the beans and sais "Fly, you fools". Nobody understood it sadly, and later he is resurrected as gandalf the white and couldn't remember his plan anymore. Mind blown!
+gerben ferwerda "I don't agree with it, so it must be stupid" Good explanation my friend. Anyway I'll just leave this here. guff.com/this-genius-theory-completely-redefines-the-way-youll-see-lord-of-the-rings
+yannick hanegreefs if he knew he was about to die what not just say it straight up? Instead of being all cryptic and mysterious why not just say "USE THE EAGELS YOU MORONS!"
yannick hanegreefs It goes against canon actualy, and it makes no sense, why not tell at least Frodo or Aragorn, and if they needed the eagles, why not get eagles to the west-side of Moria, just a few reaons, there are lots and lots more.
One point about the thing with Legolas and the Elephant: Pretty positive that Aragorn was yelling for Legolas so he wasn't blindsided by a rampaging elephant because he was distracted fighting the orc horde. I highly doubt he was implying an order to nuke the elephant lmao.
Apparently not much pure is left existing on earth. Everyone is corrupted like the rings had done. Sam and Frodo loved each other as a brother and friend. But then people have to interpret it as gay. It's no wonder why the world is falling apart with so many people being like snakes who will stab one another in the back and twist things into their own level. People now just can't understand a level like that of loyalty without thinking it must be gay. I guess in a way I can see why some can't understand it because not many have ever had a true friend like that in these times. The whole point is that hobbits don't have the greed and corruption of men like here. Sad that people can't aspire to be more like that.
@@truesoulghost2777 I agree that's one of the reasons a hobbit was a good choice to bear the ring. Sams friendship also helped to comfort Frodo from the burden of the ring.
The Eagles weren't used because they don't owe anyone shit, they are damn Eagles. Gandlaf was damn lucky they showed up twice. Also the moth messaging system probably takes a *REALLY* long time. Hell maybe Gandalf did ask them and they were like "No, we're goddamn Eagles fuck you."
The reason why they didn't use the Eagles was cos when they arrived at the black gate they were immediately attacked by fell beasts the whole point of the fellowship was that they could take the ring to mordor unnoticed
+T Brady It's one thing for Galadriel to create a protective shield in Mirkwood. It's quite another to do so in *Mordor*, where Sauron's power is strongest.
Adrijana Radosevic'because "fell beasts" don't do shit without their Nazgul riders.' Just because we don't see any fell beasts without Nazgul riders doesn't mean that they can't have other riders, nor that they can't do anything without a rider. They were likely created in mockery of the eagles, in the same way that trolls were created in mockery of the ents, and orcs were of elves. While this means they individually they were probably weaker, but there could easily have been more than the 9 used as mounts by the Ringwraiths. 'While the LotR movies were being made, Galadriel didn't have such powers.' She was using them to defend Lothlorien. She repulsed no less than 3 full-scale assaults, although it's not mentioned in the films, or even in the main story of the book, but rather the appendix chronicling the timeline of the war. 'why couldn't she do it and protect Rivendell from the Nazgul during their attack at the Ford?' Elrond was doing that, with *his* ring, thus explaining what he was doing when the Nazgul were chasing his daughter (who is actually old enough to take care of herself, by the way. She's over 2700 years old when she first meets Aragorn!) As for the rest, Galadriel *wasn't there!* It's hard to use your powers to help when you're somewhere else, even with that Mirror. Also, to use their powers in this way (especially the rings) while Sauron was awake would draw his attention, which would, in Gandalf's case, defeat the purpose of the Fellowship sneaking quietly to Mordor to destroy the One Ring. I understand your issues, and agree that some of them should have been addressed in the movies, if only in a comment like 'Lothlorien was attacked, but the Lady fought them off.'
I’ve never seen number eleven as being a stupid moment. I’ve always thought that if Frodo had attempted to pull Gandalf up and he had lost his grip while he was holding him, he would have been pulled down by the Balrog too. Thus, they had to choose the lesser of the two evils: let Gandalf die and have Frodo live or let Frodo try to save him and have him be killed as well.
How would Frodo have been pulled down by the Balrog? The film clearly shows that the whip is no longer around Gandalf's leg and the Balrog has fallen away from them into the abyss. Gandalf is just hanging over the precipice, all that is needed is for someone to help him back up. The more one thinks about this scene the more one realises that Peter Jackson is a bad director, and his colleagues are bad scriptwriters.
Oh yeah good point. Maybe they didn't try to help Gandalf because in their minds Balrog's whip is still attached to him and could pull anybody that tries to help him down into the abyss as well. They saw the whip when it caught Gandalf. Oh wait that was 7 months ago, sorry lol.
They didn't let Frodo try to pull Gandalf up because: 1. The Goblins archers were coming to fire at them. 2. He never would have made it in time as Gandalf's grip was slipping. 3. He's the Ring bearer, if he falls off the bridge, the Ring is lost.
@@t.i.5528 Ok, 1 & 3 I agree with. The problem with 2 is that Gandalf just fell 2 seconds ago (10 with the slowmo) so "don't bother his grip is slipping" is not something they can conclude for sure this fast. And the way I see it his grip wasn't really slipping, he let himself go.
Actually I don’t have a problem with some of the goofy Gimli moment like when he was making small talk with Eowyn on their way to helms deep it shows that he was trying to make laugh while being social. For some reason I find this relatable for those who take long trip and just make conversation to past the time.
How come the eagle thing keeps coming up? The eagles refused to do it, that's why, that's the canon answer, and i've heard it said to anyone who brings up the eagles enough times that i can't believe anyone's *not* heard that.
Tbh, I still don't get it. Do they give a reason why the eagles do not do the whole thing all along, or is it that they 'refused to do it because they are jerks and they want more people to suffer'?
they were supposed to use the eagles : "fly you fools"... But then gandalf is delayed, frodo is already far and they can't know exactly where he is, so they make a distraction to help him. That's a theory anyway
@Dark Star You are right but in the movies they do not actually address this... In the books it is fully explained, There is a reason why the Eagles will NOT take the ring...Namely their distrust of the Races of Middle Earth who in the previous war with Sauron became corrupted - They only help Gandalf as he has always shown himself to be above corruption... ...Which is another point the movie FAILS to Explain!!!! Why do the Eagles consider Gandalf Incorruptible? Known to those who read the books but NEVER ADDRESSED IN THE FILM!!! In the final Scenes as Gandlaf, Galadriel and Frodo leave for the Grey Havens, BOTH GALADRIEL AND GANDALF ARE WEARING RINGS YOU NEVER SEE IN THE MOVIE!!! In the book it finally becomes that point of realization - Galadriel and Gandalf are wearing two of the original Rings - They had managed to use their powers to hide them from Sauron, but other than that are powerless to use them against him... The One Ring Rules them all as we know!!! That then also explains HOW GANDALF WHO IS HUMAN LIVES SO DAMN LONG! He is well known to the Hobbits in The Hobbit Trilogy and given Hobbits live for around 100 Years themselves, to be that well known means Gandalf must be at least 500 YEARS OLD by the time of the first Hobbit Movie!!! How does a Human Live that long? The ring!!! Its a GOD RING - They were all GOD RINGS! But Sauron wanted to be the ULTIMATE GOD hence he Created THE ONE RING! Yes, It is indeed finally explained in the books closing act that Gandalf and Galadriel are GODS in Mortal Form!!! But the movie adaption to the movie - It missed all this to avoid the Exposition... And instead gave us many other un-needed storylines!!! Still, regardless - I love these films and always will - They managed to make them amazing and I love them!!! The Hobbit Trilogy on the other hand... Oh Jesus... :(
Silent Solitude I know. The books went into more detail and actually took time to build him up as an ace badass. However, the films sorta just figured everyone had read the books so they just... made him an ace but with little build up. I didn't read the books till only recently, back when I saw the movie I was like "soooo, what's the big deal with this guy?"
Frodo and Sam had to travel all the way through middle earth together, the fact that they have an extremely strong bond doesn’t make them gay. Just sayin 🤷♂️
NC already stated that the intention was most likely to reflect friendship, but is executed in such a cheesy way it comes off as something other than platonic friendship
Not everyone is a shipper....some people are gay and have intense interactions with the people they are attracted to or date because - gasp, sometimes you're close to and confide in people you're in love with- and we wish people would recognize that when it's two people of the same gender and not just when it's hetero people. I find myself wondering why no one who saw the movies without reading the books wondered why Sam and Rosie came out of nowhere but had plenty of criticism for people reading into the Sam/Frodo chemistry. People will have their preferences in the end and complain about what they want to complain about, but they should unpack the fact that a lot of it is heteronormativity masquerading as moral superiority.
@@rocketpsyence If you're assuming what I think you might be assuming, I don't have a problem with LGBTQ couples. My issue is when shippers ASSUME a character is gay just because of two people of the same gender having a close friendship or being a confidant, like Joker and Akechi from Persona 5 or Deku and Bakugo from MHA, despite either of them showing clear cut signs of being straight. It's not having a superiority, it's getting pissed off at assuming a characters sexuality
The line “Still only counts as one” might be dumb but it gets me every time. Same with him saying “You’ll have to throw me!” I don’t laugh at that moment but I like it because it shows his pride and his willingness to let it go to win the fight. Many others would not be so willing to do that!
That, and you can't expose the eagles to the ring for so long, let alone allow them to carry it, or they'd be corrupted, and then you have eagles that are strong enough to kill dragons working for Sauron. They're just below gods in Tolkien lore, so letting them have an all-corrupting ring in their presence would NOT be a good idea. It's the worst idea.
I think Gandalf just knows that the route is the goal. Every character comes out stronger than before. Aragorn is the new King and the alliance of elves and humans is renewed. People learned again to work together, and thats the real goal of the journey, not the banishment of Sauron.
In the bit where Sam leaves. Frodo doesn't send him away because he ate the food. He sends him away because he asked Frodo if he could carry the ring, so Frodo was worried Sam was being corrupted by the Ring. And Sam returns because seeing the Lembas Bread proves that Gollum had some kind of plan in it and was being purposefully malicious
@@LegatusLucius1994 and legolas became a cartoon character. aragorn is a hesitant pussy. in the book he carried narsil already in bree inn. in fact, everyone were pussies. Faramir never desired to bring the ring to minas tirit and gandalf didn´t loose his staff to no witch king. they never fought. and dont get me worked up with arwen... now look what you did..!! getting me all worked up. apologize!!!
Much too late for you or anyone to ever read this, but the Eagles keep their involvement light because their patron, the Zeus-analog Manwe, is trying to limit his and the other Valar's involvement in the world. The last time they went all out, to take down Sauron's boss Morgoth for the last time, an entire sub-continent was shattered into _tiny_ islands and open rifts that spewed magma were broken open. The destruction was so horrific that Manwe, and the hosts that went out, were so horrified that even when they were invaded by Numenor 3000 years later they were reluctant to take up arms. The result of that last skirmish was to literally change the way the world worked. Once upon a time, in Middle-earth the edges of the map were the literal ends of the earth with nothing beyond them. Now, it's a globe. And millions died in the change. So yeah, the Eagles are loath to fully commit themselves, and thus their patron, to battle in an increasingly fragile world. The outright alienation and estrangement the new order of affairs created between mortals (and the elves are included in this category) and the Powers (with a capital "P") can't be ignored either; the Valar and other Ainur might be happy to give small rewards and acknowledgment to the mortals that do well, but they don't wan't to do it all for them either. That's what lead to the above continent and earth-shattering wars in the first place; the Valar trying to coddle and (over)protect the frail humans and elves. The sum of this? There is good reason why the Eagles didn't just do everything. It just takes a thousand or so pages of reading esoteric myths that were being constantly rewritten all the way up to Tolkien's death and edited afterward by Christopher Tolkien to start getting the picture. Thus, I can't blame you for getting annoyed over this plot point, but I also can't help getting annoyed myself because there is a good answer that takes more attention that you're willing to give to explain.
That’s probably a good reason not to include the eagles in the first place. If you have to write the equivalent of another novel where you jump through hoops just to explain why they don’t just fix anything then it might be a good idea not to include them in the first place. They don’t serve the story in any meaningful way anyway. They are purposefully vague and not fleshed out characters, they don’t offer any challenges or develop the characters and they don’t flesh out the world. They are just flying deus ex machinas who make you ask more questions than give answers, texture or context. Get rid of them and the story is improved.
@@paulallen579 Hm, I'm not even too bothered by their involvement in the Lord of the Rings. I mean it's sort of cheap to use them but they are cool. I also think it's explained well enough by the fact that they really are not trying to attract attention and that using the eagles would literally be the best way to attract attention to the ring. However, the only real reason they're in the books is because they were also in the Hobbit and now that's where their use is sort of unforgivable. I get that they're gods with their own unique relationship to Gandalf but they're also kind of dicks for not flying the gang closer to Erebor. It's not like they were evading a massive fucking eye. Hell they didn't even have to fly above Laketown, they could have just gone around and dropped them off like, a days journey away from the Mountain just to be safe.
Basically yeah. To say nothing of if someone were to try to pull Gandalf up, they would be stuck in place as they try to heave him up clear of the broken bridge, entirely not taking into account the weight of the Balrog and the high chance that if you lost your footing, you would fall in as well.
@scamanderous I don’t like the extended cut of Two Towers as much. It makes the film feel way slower without adding much imo. The other extended cuts are great, though.
ok, i know this video went out a long time ago, so nostalgia critic likely wont ever see this comment, but for anyone else out there like me who is new to his content and hasnt read the lotr books, only seen the movies, this is what i gathered about arwen when rewatching the series, just to clear up some confusion. Arwen is the love interest of Aragorn (obviously) and daughter to Lord Elrond, master of Rivendell, an elvish stronghold. when Aragorn leaves rivendell with the fellowship to go to Mordor, Arwen gave him her amulet as a sign of her affection. This amulet is her sole connection to the light of Eldar, which secures her immortality and protects her from dark magic. when she gave it to Aragorn, she surrendered it as a sign of her love for a mortal, which also exposed her to Sauron's evil. However, Aragorn, despite his love for Arwen, tells her that he cannot be with her, because he does not wish for her to die, and because he thinks that he might die in battle, leaving Arwen alone in her grief and despair. so, in order to prevent this, he tells her he cant be with her and tries to give her the amulet back, but Arwen refuses to take it back, as Aragorn still had her love, despite him turning her away. In the events of "the two towers" we see Lord Elrond tell Arwen what he believes her future will be with Aragorn, living out the rest of her immortal life alone after he dies, if he is to even make it out of the war alive. This is where many become confused, as they think that the films are contradicting themselves. however, Lord Elrond does not discover that Arwen gave up her immortality until the third movie, Return of the King, and thus his vision of her future is actually untrue of what would actually occur, and Lord Elrond is simply mistaken. It is during the events of the third movie that we see Arwen have a vision of Aragorn, now much older, with their future child. This "sight" was inherited to her by her father, as he can see different possible future events in the form of these visions. Arwen shares her vision with Lord Elrond, and he has a change of heart, even more so after seeing her begin to grow weary and her hands turn cold, showing that the light of Eldar is leaving her, and revealing to her father that she had given up her immortality. Lord Elrond has the sword of Gondor reforged, a blade which has a blood tie to a number of fallen soldiers who are cursed to live as ghosts because they had forsaken their duty to the crown of Gondor. He gives the sword to Aragorn, who is heir to the throne of Gondor, and tells him that Arwen's fate is tied to the ring. this also causes some confusion, as many do not understand how the ring could have any effect on arwen, who is miles away from it. What Lord Elrond means by this is that as long as Sauron's evil exists and spreads (which is occuring due to the prolonged existence of sauron's soul because of his soul tie with the ring) Arwen will grow weaker and weaker until she dies because she is exposed to sauron's evil due to her relinquishing of her immortality and thus her protection from dark magic. After the ring is destroyed and Sauron is vanquished forever, her soul is saved, and she lives out the rest of her mortal life with Aragorn as the crowned queen of Gondor after Aragorn is crowned king and chooses to marry her after securing the safety of Middle Earth. Sorry that was so long. hope it cleared up some confusion.
Lol the ring shrinks or expands to fit the wearer. The more powerful the creature the stronger & faster they are consumed by the ring. That’s why hobbits are so resilient to its corruption, they didn’t start out with much power to begin with. Not even Gandalf dared touch it because he feared what it would do to him. But no totally give it to the eagle “gods” a creature easily susceptible to the rings power that won’t backfire.
He fought the Balrog for eight days "From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak I fought with the Balrog of Morgoth... Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountain side". They def didn't specify that in the movie tho. Just my nerd coming out - great video!
Well they actually did specify that in the movie. That was the only line given though. Exactly what you wrote and was in the books was said in the movie as well.
And how did they change locations and why exactly? If they didn't teleport, did one chase the other up the whole mountain or probably a hundred set of stairs? From what little context is given, I can't help but imagine Gandalf pursuing a giant evil flame demon the whole way or whatever the Balrog is supossed to be, from what I've heard Tolkien lore is mostly based on norse mythology, so the denizens of Muspelheim, realm of Fire and the Fire giant Surt (Harbinger of Ragnarok)seem like the most likely canidates.
@@jayk5114 I was a little drunk when I posted this and it probably could have been worded better but I feel like what I meant by "specify" was how he made it from "the lowest dungeon to the highest peak." It shows them fighting at the bottom, and then the top but nothing in between.
Number one has been debunked Frodo can hold out, because he is a hobbit The very reason that the eagles would not take the ring is because the more powerful you are the faster you are corrupted (elves are an exception) eagles are just under Gandalf in the hierarchy who himself is just under Sauron
"Debunked" just means that someone has disagreed. Use a different word. "Frodo can hold out, because he is a hobbit". Not correct. He can hold out because he's not corrupt. Despite what LotR fanboys pretend, this is a core metaphor in the book. The Ring symbolizes power, and the purpose of having three hobbit ringbearers; Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo, is precisely to show three separate responses to gaining great power, as well as three distinct ways of attaining that power, which is just as significant. Gollum seeks to use it for personal gain and becomes even more corrupt than he already was, and also attained it through murder in the first place. Bilbo uses it when it's convenient but isn't as preoccupied with it as Gollum was, although he's getting there by the start of LotR. And he attained it by theft, which is slightly less serious than murder but still not right. But Frodo only uses it as a last resort, sometimes not even then, and attained it through inheritance. Nothing about Frodo's possession of the Ring is corrupt, and neither is he. That's why he resists the evil of the Ring, because he himself is pure from the start. The fate of the three is determined by how they got the Ring (power) in the first place and how they use it. There are several key messages in LotR, but this is probably the most important one. And hobbits are of course analogous of children. And this is the point. only a child can be pure enough to stay uncorrupted by power. But, as Gollum and Bilbo demonstrated, not any child. That's why the other races, representing various aspects of adulthoodl culture, industry and war for elves, dwarves and humans respectively, can't endure the Ring at all. They instantly want to use it for various reasons, and would then become corrupted by it. Elves are somewhat of an exception, as are wizards now and then. But even they refuse to take the Ring repeatedly in LotR because they know it will tempt them. There is a religious allegory here and a political one, and both are flaming obvious. Again despite what Tolkien fanboys say. They have one quote from Tolkien vs mountains of serious literary analysis. They lose.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 It doesn't matter how much "serious literary analysis" you have, Tolkien still knows more about his universe than anyone else.
@@@joseywales1439 And authors don't like to admit to their allegories because they imagine that they are having secret conversations with themselves and their most exalted readers. If they admit them then even the stupidest readers will know.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 I'm not denying the allegories are there - they most certainly are. But in Tolkien's world there are very specific reasons that the eagles would not carry the ring - they were basically demi-gods in Middle-earth, and the ring's power *was* dependent on the original power of the user, that's why the ring-bearers were all Hobbits, they were the least powerful and thus least likely to become corrupted. As you've pointed out, even Hobbits can and do become corrupted by the ring, but as easily as they do, more powerful beings (like eagles) would be that much easier to corrupt. For example, Boromir became somewhat bewitched by it by simply being in it's presence and seeing it with his own eyes. Gandalf of course is a powerful being, but I believe the reason he could be around the ring is because he had a proper fear of it, and refused to touch it or even look at it for too long. As explained in Tolkien's other writings about Middle-earth, eagles are some of the most physically powerful creatures in Middle-earth - able to take down a dragon that crushed three mountain ranges when it fell. There is no absolute guarantee that the eagles would have become corrupted, but if they had, the war would have basically been over then and there, and Gandalf was not willing to take that risk.
@@@joseywales1439 Right. i just think it's a bit contrived and ad-hoc. It's as if he wanted a convenient taxi service for the times when he wrote himself into a corner, and then needed to cook up endless ways to explain them away again afterwards. The Ring is just one thing, but the eagles were there, saving Tolkien's characters from certain death, way back in Silmarillion, when The Ring hadn't been made yet. I think this is the laziest literary device in all of Tolkien's writings. Nearly embarrassing in fact. "Oh no, another hopeless situation! I wonder if the eagles will somehow swoop in and save everyone this time." Eagles in the machine, man. That's all this is, and I don't like it at all.
The close ups increase the intensity and they were used in scenes usually revolving around the One Ring. So I think it adds to the immersion and helps you feel for the immediate yet internal danger the ring presents.
Even cooler, is Christopher Lee objected to the original sound effect of his character's stabbing; complaining that "that isn't how someone being stabbed sounds." Because he knew what someone being stabbed sounded like!
So here's the deal with the eagles: (not only defending them) 1- They are under only the Valar's control, which means this argument at the end of the day is like asking why didn't the gods save them(i.e. dues ex machina for the entire story, yay then what's the point). It'd be like Zeus telling his servants to carry Odysseus all the way home. Not much of a point then isn't it? And Gwaihir befriended Gandalf after he was rescued from a poison arrow. This meant that although the eagles could help Gandalf in desperate times of need, he didn't have sway over them entirely. 2- In the book, and I know this is only concerning the movie, It's called the "cracks of doom" for a reason. They're fissures, and it would take actually going in the volcano to destroy the ring. Yes, it's the movie version but just an FYI. 3- Yes, this is technically a loophole. Tolkien used convenient dues ex machina devices (eagles) in many stories previous to lotr and the hobbit. This could've been shut down in five seconds if someone mentioned it at the council of Elrond and Gandalf said something like "Nay, the eagles are servants to Manwe only. And he has given this task to Middle Earth alone, for his will reflects Eru Ilúvatar." Or "Nay, Gwaihir and his minions cannot withstand the will of Sauron in Barad-dûr." And on and on. My guess is Tolkien knew that it was implied heavily that the Valar wanted the children of Eru to become independent from their godly parents during the course of this story.
The eagles aren’t a plot hole whatsoever. The eagles only made it to the Black Gate because Sauron was a little distracted, or did you miss that part? 😅
The whole point of Gandalf letting go of the ledge is that he _sacrifices himself_ to force the fellowship of the ring to move forward, so as to prevent the ring from falling into the hands of the goblins, and by extension, Sauron. As to why Aragorn keeps Frodo from helping Gandalf, he does it for _the exact same reason as Gandalf_ , as he understands the imperative of keeping Frodo - and by extension, the ring - safe, so he prevents Frodo from risking not just his own life, but the very fate of Middle Earth to save a person he values deeply. Gandalf and Aragorn both know they have to serve a higher purpose than just protecting the ones they love. Read the novel, dude. Sam and Frodo's "gayness": you really need to wrap your head around the British concept of a military officer and his personal adjutant. It is the idea of servitude to a degree of complete personal dedication that is reflected in Sam's attitude towards Frodo. Do not forget that Frodo is basically Sam's boss, as Sam is his gardener, and in the British class system of the early 20th century, this meant more than just an employer/employee relationship. Sam is the most loyal follower and helper that an upper class person could ever hope for. Remember how Sam calls him _Mister_ Frodo all the time. This is a reflection - and approval - of the British class system of Tolkien's time, and the difference in status becomes blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at how they address each other: Sam is always on the lower status side, and Frodo not making a point of it makes him a benevolent upper class officer in the eyes of any law-abiding empire-loving Brit. Like it or not, _this_ is the context that Tolkien wrote for, and yes, 80 years later we might have to use a little understanding of our own history to make sense of his writings. And yeah, I am not the first one to point this out, but Saruman is absolutely _not human_ . As a Maia, he is basically a demi-god in the same tier as Gandalf (hence his convenient resurrection) and Sauron himself. Read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Sorry, bro, but with an author as complex as Tolkien, your bitchings come across as somewhat short-sighted.
Maybe it's because I'm 60 years old that i find your explanation of the bond between Frodo and Sam to be correct and appropriate.. I never once considered there to be any romantic idea.I'm American so i can only speak to my own culture as opposed to the English class system of Tolkien 's age but it clearly makes and. I've watched enough movies to have seen this type of relationship play out and , well ,I just never thought it was anything other than loyalty to ones service.
THANK YOU SO FUCKING MUCH. Now, if we could just drill this into the minds of every person who wants to watch the world fuck, that would be even better! Sometimes shipping characters is funny, but it's so infuriating when people do it solely because they don't understand deeper levels of friendship and loyalty! YOU, SIR, ARE A SAINT. (And I learned something new in the process.) Again, thank you!!!
@BZD -Darkblackros- I swear these people are so obsessed that they ignore that fact that the film should be able to stand on its own. The books cannot be used as a defense for the movies.
Marius Møller yeah... During the 3d movie you start thinking; Wait what the f*ck happened to Saruman after the 2nd movie? If you don't see the extended versions, you will never know how he died
HansWorst when I saw it in the cinema I didn't give to fucks about what happend, of course after that I watched the extended. But if you are a fan and never saw it during the original run you will never know how big these movies where
@@athalonARC From what I understand, they can be killed but they're not really dead. Their spirits just end up in a new body, which is exactly what happened to Gandalf.
When I first watched the lord of the rings I watched the extended edition so I saw Saruman’s death, but god damn they should have left it in the full movie
To be honest the ending could have been a lot worse when you realise that the ending in the Return of the King takes up half the book. This was because there was an entire sub ark about Saruman taking over the Shire. And regarding the Eagles, Tolkien was actually aware of the plot hole they created but felt that they were a necessary evil.
I think he also mentioned that the eagles are pretty independent minded and were under anyone’s control and could be unpredictable. as well as the fact Frodo traveling on foot would be less of an attraction to the eye as he was a simple traveler
#11: Orcs are immediatly attacking. To drag an old man up a cliff that would falling anyway while reaching him would be not sooo good. A lot of shots in these scenes are also slowed down and they seem further away then first shown. #10: I like the many endings. #9: True but the movie needed his comedic release from time to time. #8: He is basically the opposite of Gimli and also over the top in his scenes. #7: There i miss the understanding of these scenes. #6: Denethor was crazy. Really really crazy. Considering he lives directly in front of the dark lord, constantly attacked by orcs and must fear anhilation on a daily basis and then must give up his position if the king comes back like he is an easy replaceable pawn which means the job he has done for the whole kingdome is in no way valued. Yeah, to get crazy... is not so unreasonable. And crazy people to strange stuff. #5: Gandalf is a half god. He died and after he get back to his gods he was send back with more power to finish the job to secure the creation of allfather Illuvatar. Aragorn also got missing after the interception of the warg riders and came a day or so later back. And yes even in the books Frodo "died" from the giant spider only to discover he didn't really died (J.R.R. Tolkien liked his tropes). And don't make Gimli a useless fighter he is a dwarf, they live a lot longer than humans, have a greater average strength and experience to fight and elves are immortal. Legolas is basically the most experienced from him (seriously, think about a soldier that fought several battles and lived hundreds of years to refine his skills). But yes a lot of the shots are only made for the cool action. #4: Yeah strange. But considering that the gods of middle earth send five half gods to the humans to fight Melkor (god of destruction and first dark lord) and then Sauron (his underling and second dark lord of middle earth) could leave the world tainted in some way (after all, even Sauron is an immortal half god that follows the path of destruction, or at least his crazy ideas). #3: Yeah. I think they get a little too far with the whole friendship thing. #2: Never understood why they cut it from the regular edition. #1: The eagles are not tame and trained. Gandalf need to convince them. They are basically another sentinent lifeform like the humans. And it took Gandalf a lot of time to get the humans to fight against the dark lord (he basically needed a power up from his gods to be the new white wizard to beat saruman out of theoden and get controll of the second biggest human army of all middle earth) and even then, why would the leader of the eagles send his own kin to death for human affairs, while they would be like: "Yeah if the dark lord attacks we fly away to another continent or island"
And let's say they DID used the Eagles, like straight away, in the first movie. Would the movies then be even more fun? It would be more logical, but it would more bowring. In fact, isn't that the point of fiction? Defying logic?
In regards to point number one, I have researched and heard many points for both sides. Each have valid points. The only conclusion I could reach is this, "They took a calculated risk. That's it."
Karakla08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 It's a good movie that doesn't explain itself very well at many points. It doesn't matter what reasons you make up or come from extended sources, the MOVIE didn't show any of it very well. Actually listen to the review. Truly listen. He isn't saying the movie is bad. Just some bits needed more work.
Wow that is over 2 month old. At the time i wanted to provide some informations and also my opinion. I think i didn't said anytime anything against the critics opinion and also agreed on some things. And yeah, good movies but missing often a lot of context sadly. I personally think a series would do a better job in telling the story of lord of the ring. I personally liked the pretty slow paced parts where they are about story and wandering around. Also i miss the part about tom bombadil.
Karakla08 Sorry if I misread the intent of the comment. So so many people complaining about this specific upload that it may have skewed my perception.
I've always interpreted the lembas bread thing as just Sam reconsidering his decision. Obviously he knew that Gollum set him up but chose to leave anyway because it's what Frodo wanted. But seeing the lembas bread probably snapped something in his head that made him go "You can't let it end like that" so he went back. I don't know if that's what Peter Jackson intended but it makes sense to me.
That’s exactly what I interpreted that scene to be. It really isn’t that complicated to understand and I don’t know how Doug managed to overthink that scene. Sam did know all along that he did not get rid of their food and that he got mad since he didn’t want Gollum to win the situation and get him and Frodo out of that mess.
Sam and Frodo were never written to be friends. Tolkein clearly was writing about the archetypal servant who follows his master everywhere and protects him because his is a noble spirit. Friends don't refer to each other as "Mr Frodo, sir", that's a servant talking to his betters.
Your personal interpretation. Frodo's friends are listed in the book as Merry, Pippin and Fredegar. Sam is his gardener and systematically talks to and about Frodo as his employer more than his friend. The Sam character is a representation of loyalty more than friendship. Certainly not homosexuality. In some ways you find more of that in the books than you do the movies, like when he blushes after touching Frodo's hand in Rivendell. That is certainly an odd thing for a friend or a gardener to do.
Yeah. I think that it was intended to be a "loyal beloved servant" situation, but the way it was written... I don't really have a good argument for people who say Sam was completely in love with him, haha.
@Kat McCloud People see what they want to see. But it is a more complex relationship than either friendship, employer-employee or some sort of Platonic love. More of a mix of all three I think. And the only reason I would have ever even thought of the third is the scene in Rivendell when Frodo wakes up. Maybe Tolkien was a prude and I just don't get it, but Sam's behavior there doesn't really fit how a friend or an employee would react.
Tolkein stated in his writings that he drew inspiration of Sam and Frodo's relationship as that between a superior officer during WWI and his batman (not the comic one, the role in WWI). Officers often had extremely close relationships with their batmen, given how the latter would sometimes have to risk their lives for the former.
+MrViral20 Its fucking John Rhys Davies, and in top form! I love how he was throwing stunt men around like crazy in the actual filming. They kept having to tell him to tone it back, heh. As for the goofiness, I find it kind of endearing, it also is designed most likely to play off of Legolas's absolute stoic and serious attitude at least at first. I love when they try to drink the other under the table, the "drunk" Legolas after Gimli was about to pass out was absolutely one of my favorite scenes. Legolas "I... I think I feel something." (Me: Heh, Elves and wine, they get drunk all the time in the woods, I have read the books! They drink perhaps as much or MORE than Dwarves!) Gimli (indecipherable words, then a smile and pass out) Legolas (watches Gimli tip over backwards...) (Me: LMAO!)
My biggest issue with this whole franchise is how they portrayed Gandalf as a wizard, yet he barely uses any magic. Whenever he's in battle he uses a fucking sword. Dude you are wizard, cast a spell.
The reason they didnt try to save Gandalf is because most of the group knew that the remains of the bridge could collapse at any moment so in a way Aragorn saved Frodo from killing himself. Atleast I think so.
Actually, Gandalf made a dick move about the balrog. He went to solo it too keep all the loot & xp, hence the new gear and rank when he comes back.
Sly bastard.
That hoarding old bag of farts!
He got a shinny knew robe and staff.
shit, he even got a new class from fighting balrog
If he can solo a boss and come back with epics, Gandalf needs a nerf :P
So true
Gandalf u edgy bitch
Yeah is true, you only get all that loot al level 45 shit he is a cheater.
The 'Too many endings' isn't a real problem unless you're in the theater, with a large soda threatening to burst your bladder before they FINALLY get around to the end credits.
Especially if you're 12.
I literally yelled just fucking end already as an adult with an empty bladder. It was annoyingly long.
LOL
I never feel like I have to go to pee in the theater
@@vanillabadboy4469 Then why the hell are you going to the cinema? If I would've been there I would've kicked you out, manchild.
9 - Gimli gets a fantastic ending, though. "Never thought I'd die fighting side by side with an elf..." --- "What about side by side with a friend?" --- "Aye. I could do that."
Feeeelz
And he goes to the undying lands (in the book) along side legolas to spend the rest of his days in peace with his friend.
@Christopher McMillan But he isn't a badass in the books though, he is just good in the books. While in the movies he is both badass and funny, because he is awesome.
I didn't like that line because it's so obvious they are never going to kill off a main character. We already know these characters are invincible, they've already survived 3 huge battle sequences without even getting a scratch on them, why should the battle at the black gate be any different?
@@spaceace4387 That's fair. Me I get misty eyed every time. I suppose for me it's about the concept of dying fighting alongside a former enemy whom with you have formed a bond.
@@smaakjeks That's fine and all but the movie didn't do it well.
The Saruman death part should have never been left out out of the theatrical part.
No shite
It should have been in the theatrical cut of The Two Towers.
yeah it left a void when it did not have a closure for this antagonist.
I wish the movie didn't leave out the part about Saruman standing at the gates of Bag End. Plus it would've been a nice interesting touch to see the Baggins birthday party being set up. In the Hobbit trilogy really could've been cut diwn to two movies max. Too much was added that wasn't necessary that was supposed to be it's own story. Hell even in LOTR Bilbo tells Frodo he had his own story. I remember awhile back Peter Jackson got in hot water not just with New Zealand for not paying certain bills for filming but also the Tolkien estate because of the way he portrayed some of the characters like Legolas.
Too true
The original cut felt so unfulfilled without having Saruman show up one last time
I mean considering Jackson switched him around than the original books ending with him at the shire being killed off
The extended version is far superior
So the whole Frodo/Sam friend relationship thing gets a bad rap, but what most people don't realize is the time this book was written and the context it was written. JRR Tolkien was a WW1 vet, where he's been in the trenches of war with other soldiers fighting a seemingly desperate situation. So they may have had a lot of vulnerable moments, and I think the Sam/Frodo friendship really captures that. When you constantly fear for your life, you would want to cling to whatever positive force you could.
Also another thing to address which I've never hear anyone talk about is that Hobbits are more childlike in nature. The books reference it a lot more. And children are more likely to be close to another. I mean in the scene where Gandalf gets angry at Bilbo and Bilbo starts to wimper, you see Gandalf bend down and give him a comforting hug. Like an adult to a child. I'm surprised I've never hear anybody make a case about that at all.
Anyways I said enough I think.
spearfisherman308 Frodo was 50 years old when he left the shire but in Hobbit terms he was really a young adult around 20 years.
wow lol idk why people are bothered by that XD. I still watch the trilogy and dont get cringe.
Well Spoken!!!!
The thing is, they are going through more than most ever will. They have to leave their homes behind on a journey they do not expect to survive. They don't even fully hope to accomplish what they're trying to do. Not only that, they go through battles, lose Gandalf, the one who could truly lead. Then Boromir falls into desperation and attacks Frodo. THEN they have to leave the others, alone in shitty mires. And Gollum comes into the picture, a creature Frodo knows is close to himself, and shows what Frodo will become if he gives in to the Ring's power. They have to follow a psychotic creature through lands of darkness and despair. The days fade, so ''winter depression'' kicks in (It's a thing in northern countries, for real). They barely see anyone else, are betrayed and led to the lair of a giant, inbreeding, monstrous spider of darkness. Finally going through the land of the dark lord and up the almost vertical slope of a mountain.
AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT! The Ring itself. The Ring drives Frodo into depression, tempting him at all times, weighing him down, and every step towards Mordor makes it worse. How could he NOT seek ''gay'' comfort in a faithful friend? It has nothing to do with being overly gay, but to seek comfort in his only friend who's following him through it all, sharing his burden as much as he can. And for Sam's part, he's watching his best friend go through the journey with a terrible thing that he must carry alone.
It's just silly that people think they are too gay without being gay, just because they are closer than anyone would be in a normal everyday life. Their story is meant to show how we need friends to make it through struggles.
I'm not sure what your definition of ''gay'' is, but I put embrace lower down on the gay-scale, while blowjobs are a tad bit higher.
Number 2 is he main reason for why the extended editions are the definitive and, in my opinion, the only way to get the true Lord of the Rings experience
+DoctaDaKing Yup. Especially with the Hobbit Trilogy.
Tons of missing details and poor pacing. The extended editions fix some of those flaws.
+DoctaDaKing Yeah except you need to find it for less than your entire wallet.
+I Sir Laughsalot Really? I was thinking of picking the extended Hobbit films up, I take it you would recommend?
Gregory Williams Yes. Especially with the last film.
that, or read the books
The multiple endings had some of the best emotional moments in the trilogy.
Aragorn telling the hobbits “you bow to no one”
Frodo saying goodbye to Sam, merry and pippin.
Sam coming home to his family.
multiple endings for multiple stories
The endings are great, but it's the way they're edited that drags them down. Several of them look like they're about to cut to the credits, but then they keep going, faking out the audience. If they'd been shot and edited in a way that didn't make it look like the movie was about to end then I don't think people would be left feeling annoyed.
Russell Brown that’s the thing though, they’re all endings. Endings to different stories. The plot of the movie ends when the ring is destroyed, giving Gollum’s story closure as well. Minas Tirith wraps up the story for Aragorn and Arwen, and for the lands of men (as for Gimli and Legolas, they get more in the books but in the movies their story basically gets closure at the black gate). The story of Merry, Pippin, and Sam ends when they reach the Shire and settle in again. However, despite being present for each of those, Frodo never feels closure. Everyone around him seems happy and content, yet he for some reason cannot share in that for more than a short moment. His story is too tightly tied to the Ring, just like Bilbo, and he will never feel peace in Middle Earth again for as long as he lives. It is only at the Grey Havens, when he finally steps onto the grey ship and off the shores of Middle Earth, that he finally feels the weight truly lifted from his shoulders, the influence of the Ring gone, his story complete. In a way, the many different endings are a buildup of Frodo’s realization that he no longer belongs in this world, and it’s beautiful.
Like he said, it was really the fake outs that people had a problem with. It faded out how many times
Brandon Layne a fade out for the end of each story.
How dare you insult the Samwise the brave scene
It was just a wee bit whack.
@Calum Yeaman it the gey sexytime bich fuk pc
@@MaztRPwn What does that even mean?
I freaking hated Sam! I absolutely hated his face!
At 25:35, Doug pronouncing Grima as “Grime-uh/Grime-er” instead of Gree-muh” gave me a stroke
I never thought the relationship of Frodo and Sam as being even slightly homosexual. It never crossed my mind.
Jackson Fortune lots of dumbass people see homosexual stuff everywhere. it's not like people could be close friends by going through tough times.
Plus we have to remember that this is inspired by older times (ie medieval) men used to share beds as signs of respect completely non-sexually. For example if a lord had a respected dignitary or fellow noble over for negotiations he'd offer the use of the bed with him.
Homosexuality just wasn't part of the dialogue due to the morals of the day.
Max Ayson don't tell that to the sjws
+Japan has the best games Why would that hurt SJWs? If what you say is true, then it should be brought back since today their is a double standard.
***** that's a pretty weak troll
Tiny point, the reason that Gandalf was able to fall into a lake beneath the roots of the mountain and then end up on top of the mountain is called The Endless Stair. It`s is an epic stairway built by the dwarves that stretches from the deepest point in Middle Earth to the highest point. Which is the peak of Zirakzigil and the ruins of Durin`s Tower where the two had their showdown.
brain fucked
+popecorkyxxiv cool
+popecorkyxxiv Tolkien is so great at world building.
+popecorkyxxiv They did have plans to include the endless stair even going so far to as to draw concept art for it but ultimately it was cut for the sake of time and money.
+popecorkyxxiv Did they steal that from Peach's Castle?
The subtitles interpret "Legolas" as "I got ass". almost every time. Its friggin great. lmao
Well, who can argue with that statement?
*PISSING PANTS WITH LAUGHTER*
I don't know what this has to do with the actual video but I don't care, this is frickin' gold
Best subtitle ever
Well, Legolas is a Chad, so of course he’d get tons of ass. Lol! 😂
The closeups on Gandalf in the beginning are actually amazing- because Ian Mckellan portrays the fear Gandalf fears so well- it is what makes Sauron scary- the way this wizard looks so stern and serious the more he learns about the situation. I think the closeups are the right call there.
iforgot87872 Iforgot what the hell are you doing revisiting this video?
I didn’t expect to find you here. Its strange that I’ve watched so many of your Ytps that I recognize your channel name.
I can’t think any of the Thedon scenes seriously anymore because of those fucking ytps
I laugh hysterically every time I rewatch lord of the rings and hear Thedon saying “I am king of Rohan”
Exactlyy
I like the closeups, especially during intense scenes. It's so much easier to see the characters emotions, and it brings a different feel than from other movies. It makes it feel different and special somehow.
His wide angel lese is about to burst
True but woke people dont understands it lol xD
Sean bean survives in national treasure. He made it through at least 1 movie
And Jupiter Ascending, though that movie was awful.
+Sleeper800 He also survived Troy. Which is ironically one of the most gory and violent movies he was in lol
+Dave E (Kaiserlardbottomthesecond) Oh yeah, I forgot he was even in that movie. Definitely odd that he doesn't die in that of all movies though.
Sleeper800 TBH he wasn't really a main character or anything. Still though, you snuck under the radar this time Sean...
He was fired in The Martian. Does that count as a death?
"Saruman, the only human villain..."
Ehhh, read the Silmarillion, Gandalf and Saruman are actually the same kind of being as Sauron, Maiar.
You know its easy to criticize stuff you dont know anything about. Fucking idiot this guy is
@Merciless Freak im not really triggered its just that his very voice make me mad
Ehhh, be less pedantic please. This wasn't explained or clarified at all in the movies, and people are justified in considering him human. And he did just disappear in the cinematic. You need the extended version to see him get stabbed and fall off Orthanc.
Fishslap 33 I didn’t realize he didn’t die in the original cut
Fishslap 33 I didn’t realize he didn’t die in the original cut
JRR Tolkien said in any film adaptation of his works the Eagles should be used sparingly.
*sparrowgly
*sparogvwjbfllingly
Louis Tran *sparingsjsjbddhsjejsbly
*sparrohgvsjdjdjdjxkxkxkdkkdjddksnsnsbdjzjzkzkzdyjsksalaksjdjfkdsjanekfixixxjjddjekebrbly
@@hugothedog5258 spskdkrkoskkfädäcknckfldpdpdljrkrieirjfjdbbahshufusiejebfjdisiiejrbbrnxnskwiowowieiruueuwie828393982726e737r77riwjdbxbxbkJhJaiskNkskskdjKKdkkwowoebjKEKFKYOWORKTBGOkektjbrjsooabebrjfidjebfbbfbfbdiisjebrbfbb kfkoeo2krbt*
Ffs, why is everyone thinks they were gay? Sam was sacrificial, brave, guardful, clever, he was best friend that Frodo could have near him.
About bread, btw. WTF? It WAS the moment when Sam realized: "Fuck it. I will follow them, even though he doesnt want to, because he is my friend". Sam realized that Frodo was not posessed by the ring, it didnt want to lead Frodo back to Sauron. It was Gollum who set it all up. Gollum was the real threat.
Because it really does play out like a romance. It hits a lot of the same marks a love interest would have in a movie, and out of context, it really does look like two gay hobbits in love. Not the intention, obviously, but when you look at those scenes again with the idea of a gay love interest, yeah it reaaaally looks and sounds like a cheesy romance.
@@xBloodxFangx Well, thats why we HAVE context - all movies. Because noone sane would pull these scenes out of context to interprete them in own way. But yeah, not intentional. I just hate that people try to find gayness in everything these days (and back in those days where review was done)
Yeah I agree. While watching the movie, I never thought of them as gay or acting gay towards each other. Brokeback mountain and so many other movies that portray gayness have similarities while to sam and frodo have nothing of that written material.
It’s weird.
Gosh can two men not be friends ever? Not everything is romantic. There's no need to ship everyone. bruh
Well, I'll TRY to explain the eagle thing by referring to the book. In the book, the whole reason they decided to go with Gandalf's 'walk to Mordor' plan was because the Eye of Sauron was supposedly so all over the place that it would have spotted any attempt by any group of notable size to even get close to Mordor. They even said that it noticed Boromor going towards Imladris, but didn't do anything because 'he was only one small traveller, on an errand of little importance'. But afterwards he was 'now a member of the Ring's company and peril will grow for every league they travel under the open sky'.
The Eye would have noted when a big force of Eagles took off, and REALLY noticed that they were carrying the Ring. In the books, Gandalf was ridiculously paranoid about keeping the Ring hidden at all times, and never to let anybody even see or handle it if at all possible. On the rare occasions when anybody DID handle it, the narrative made clear that Sauron could sense it - and only putting it back under wraps fast allowed it to remain hidden. (The notable exception was Sam - who wore it inside Mordor several times while trying to rescue Frodo from the Orc tower)
So if a big gang of eagles took to the sky, carrying the Ring, Sauron would have known that the jig was up. Before the Eagles could have gotten to Mount Doom (and yes, it would still have taken them a day or two at least), Sauron would have beefed up defenses around Orodruin. Anyone who has played Starcraft knows that if you are informed in advance what units the enemy is building/planning to attack with, you can build countering units that will wipe out the enemy and leave them totally at your mercy.
By all accounts, Sauron had a large number of those flying creatures - we only saw nine of them at a time because they were steeds for the Black Riders. Every time one of them got killed, the riders were given another. So Sauron had a stash of them ready to go. And you can bet your patookus he'd have had every one of them circling Mount Doom, mounted with archers, ready to turn the Eagles to chum the moment they tried getting close, or even just have them catch the ring if the eagles tried to 'drop it into the volcano'.
And before you say 'but the eagles were a lot tougher than Sauron's flying beasts', again, check the book. In the book, the only reason the black riders fled was because Sauron ordered them to race to Mount Doom. At that point, Frodo was wearing the Ring, and Sauron spotted him at once, sending the Nazgul immediately. In the book, the Riders and the Eagles never actually fought, so we have no idea how the fight would have gone. All the scenes where the eagles were beating up the Riders was just non-canon Jackson-ism.
Does that mean I'm disagreeing? Not really - I agree that the eagles were a cop-out, even in the books. A get out of jail free card they played every time things looked too bleak. But the way the books portrayed the Eye of Sauron, and how well defended Mordor was, the impression was very clear that there was no way the Company could jump onto the Eagles, Valhalla it over to Mordor, and just drop the Ring into Orodruin without resistance. In Return of the King (the BOOK, not the movie), Gandalf also made this clear. 'If Sauron had used all his power to guard Mordor so that none could enter, and then bent all his guile to the hunting of the Ring, then indeed hope would have faded. Neither Ring nor bearer could long have eluded him. But now his eye gazes abroad rather than close at home.' By keeping the company ground-based and as hidden as possible, rather than raising them up on flashy birds where Sauron would spot them at once, they kept the Eye from finding them. Does this cover all the plot holes? Nope. But it does explain in some measure why Tolkein wrote it the way he did.
if they did take the eagles they would need to deal with A the nazgul B the archers with flaming arrows C the smoke from mount doom.. and D the heavy ring right withing saurons sight. amazing youtuber knowledge huh
@@mrhalfwit972 A B and C they still have to deal with after the ring is dunked. Evil armies and terrain features don't disappear when the big baddie dies. D is probably the most plausable, but they'd need to explain it in the movie or it just wouldn't make sense.... at which point just have Gondor's army rescue Frodo.
They need to mop up the evils of Mordor anyway otherwise they'll have decades of smaller wars eating away at them until some new great and powerful evil arises.
And they have to hope the Ring doesn't land on the bridge/walkway thing... Then they would be in trouble. Great explanation.
Good job on missing the video's point of NOT considering the books and only remaining in the realm of the films.
@@forcebrand4678 Sorry. But anybody who claims to be a fan of LOTR cannot 'not consider' the books which are supposed to have been the source material for the movies ;). They did a decent job of sticking to the source material for Fellowship. A mediocre job for Two Towers. And a HORRIBLE job of it for Return of the King. If they had done a better job of it? Then poor Critic wouldn't have had to pretend to be confused over it for this video....
I think the eagle issue is stated in the Hobbit book. The eagles aren´t gods, they´re a race, much like orcs or elves, they can also speak and they tell bilbo, gandalf and the dwarves that they would be shot down before they even got to the montain. The world of LOTR is way more dangerous and filled with more archers than the one in the hobbit so they could´ve been shot down much more quickly. Also the eagles´ lair lies right next to the mountains that the mines are in, so you could say that Gandalf was gonna use the eagles in the first place.
Yep. Logic trumps all.
But that being said, the moves aren't the books and the true is vice versa. The movies fail big time in explaining anything. Things happen because film. The film has nothing to do with the novels. It's a spin off something great to make big bucks. There is no care if people get pissed because reasons.
How much stuff can we steal from the popular story and make it *cough cough* better?
better throw in some relevent material in here and here, just to try to stick to something resembling the original.. add a few special effects, some more *haha* character development AND DONE!
Oh there's plot holes, and things happening that make no sense? Bah, its all good. Viewers will fill the blanks for us. We're just showing off our skills at mutilating, I mean perfecting stuff.
+Adrijana Radosevic There were around 200,000 Orcs in Mordor. And nine ring wrath riders all on FelBeasts. The Eagles would be spotted miles away and they would just be shot down by thousands of archers are hunted down by the FelBeasts
+Adrijana Radosevic There were barley any defensively around Mt.Doom in ROTK because Mordor had lost its main army at Mina's Tirth and its remaining 10,000 defenders were drawn to the BlackGate to confront the army of men waiting there. Yes you make a good point about the Nazgul being incapacitated after their defeat in Rivendell but there would still be some 200,000 Orcs in Mordor, and little under halfway through The Two Towers a Nazgul is seen patrolling the marshes on a Fellbeasts, I don't know the exact time of this was but the Fellowship would have had a slim chance at best to slip through, not the mention Saruman had knowledge of their movements and could have known of them coming on the Eagles and warned Sauron
Problem is, i'd bet every dollar in my wallet that the eagles could fly higher than a friggen stick thrower could shoot.
Yea, about those archers that can shoot ten thousand feet.....
Fun FACT:
Christopher Lee was upset about the deletion of his death scene in the theatrical version of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King..... No s***.
I'd be p***ed too >:-(
I would be too, especially since Christopher lee went to bat against Jackson for how his death was shot. Jackson wanted him to cry out and Lee was like “....if I’m stabbed in the back, puncturing my lung, there won’t be any noise, I won’t have enough air.” Because Lee was british special forces. It was epically shot and you actually felt him dying even before he hit the spike wheel. And it got freaking cut out!!
Blame the studio for forcing the cuts.
I wonder what it would have been like if Sauruman’s death scene was in The Two Towers instead of the Extended Edition of The Return of the King. The theatrical cut of Two Towers that is.
I’ve heard apparently, Christopher Lee was so angry about his scene in The Return of The King getting cut from the Theatrical version, that he actually snubbed the movie’s premiere. I’m not sure if it’s a true story or not, but if it is...then he made the right choice in my opinion.
"I couldn't believe what I saw. Because I wasn't in it."
The bread thing was Sam realizing Gollum set him up and therefore Frodo could be in danger.
But did he never wonder where the bread then went to??
@@jordirapper My mum actually made a fair point when we were watching that scene a few days ago and I pointed out that it's stupid. She said that Sam probably assumed that Gollum actually ate the bread out of hunger and then blamed it on him, but to discover that he just threw it into the abyss and from the beginning planned it all to frame Sam made him realize just how vicious Gollum is.
@@Igea1000 Even then though, Sam should know that Gollum doesn't like anything Elvish (in his first appearance Gollum is literally bitching and moaning about the Elvish rope tied around his neck) as well as hating ordinarily cooked food, preferring dead ferrets and raw fish, so why would he assume anything other than Gollum simply tossing it over the cliff? He even watched Gollum taste the bread before immediately spitting it out in Two Towers.
@@northchurch753 Yeah, I get your point, but at this point in ROTK they were climbing the mountain with no alternative to eat at all, Gollum couldn't hunt anything for himself. You know, we can all hate some kind of food until we're starving, then we can literally eat anything out of hunger. I think to assume that Gollum would eat lembas bread then is not that unbelievable?
I hated that whole thing, they replaced a great scene from the book with something that undermined the characterization of the three most vital characters.
Saruman wasn't human, he's was a Maiar. Also in the books Saruman lives til after the Ring is destroyed and attacks Hobbiton, but is killed in that battle. Nitpick, I know.
Also you can't drop the ring into Mount Doom, it'd have to be dropped into The Cracks of Doom inside The Sammath Naur. Tolkien knowledge ftw.
As far as I know the Ring can be dropped anywhere inside Mount Doom but Frodo and Sam end up in Sammath Naur because there is a road up the mountain to it because that's where Sauron forged the Ring.
I was thinking the same thing.
+John Smith no it has to be thrown were it was forged and guess were it was forged
Hendrik Deputter Also the rings can be destroyed if swallowed by a powerful dragon. That's how some of the other rings were destroyed. But there were less dragons and of lesser power during LoTR.
Number 3 is more of an example of how close male friends used to be back in the time the book was written and the time period it's based on. It wouldn't be uncommon to see two male friends holding hands together or do other stuff we may only nowadays see as small romantic gestures. It was when homosexual scandals and accusations began to surface that males began to distance themselves from each other.
kurvos I think it's more of a case that it's uncommon nowadays to see two straight men be that close, it doesn't necessarily mean one is uncomfortable.
kurvos Again, not necessarily, you can see something that's seems a little odd without feeling uncomfortable by it. You make it sound like it's a huge deal.
kurvos Or it's you overreacting, yeah it's definitely you overeating. Do you really think the world is your enemy? That expecting something different makes you a bad person? Why don't you just accept something for what it is and move on instead of having a stick up your ass about something that's really non-important? We as a species will never find harmony if we keep finding reasons to hate one another.
kurvos That doesn't really add up with what I said... I'm not looking for excuses to blow my shit, you are. That does not, by definition, make me a hypocrite.
kurvos Reasoning? Is that what you were doing? It just seemed to me like you were complaining for the sake of it, turning a small issue like finding two straight guys being incredibly close weird into some huge bigoted issue. Excuse me for giving my personal opinion on the matter, I guess in future I'll know that your opinion is the only one that counts. Also, at point did I imply I was better than you? I was simply trying to show things from my perspective in a calm manner, as is important when trying to have a reasonable debate. But if you're done, that's fine I guess, just a shame you weren't willing to see things from another angle. Toodles.
P.S. Love how you tried to take the moral high ground in the end.
So the thing with the lambas bread: I saw it as Sam knew he hadn’t eaten it, but maybe he thought he’d lost it, or it got dropped, ect. So from his perspective Frodo has a reason to be angry. But when he finds it he realises that Gollum tricked Frodo, and so he knows his friend is in danger.
and Frodo realizes he misjudged his best friend in the dark of Shelob's lair.
Exactly. I don't really understand how Doug misinterpreted that scene and it was very clear what was happening in that situation.
So those crumbs just randomly appeared on his cloak?
Yep it is logical.
@thefuriousfatty2297 Did they appear in his cloak?
OK. I seriously busted out laughing at Legolas just shooting the ring into Mt. Doom.
😂😂😂😂
It was Malcolm as gimli that did it for me 😂
That scene with Sam finding the bread: I actually thought he was more concerned seeing how treacherous and sneaky golum was, and realizing he couldn't just let Frodo be alone with that creature, not so much that he thought "well ermagerd I didn't eat dat bread like I thot ". But that's just what I got from that scene 😉
J. L. D. Yeah. It was about the fact that he realized Gollum did deliberately frame him and most likely had a specific reason for wanting Sam to be driven off by Frodo. I love Doug Walker and all but sometimes I think he misinterprets things that are kind of obvious.
He never turned around at all in the books either, but followed Frodo. That's why he was on hand to prevent Frodo from being eaten by Shelob. He would never have left. It was a very bad decision by Jackson to add this when he could just as easily have shown him sneaking after them, in a brief reversal of roles with Gollum. Of course this just makes the scene even stupider.
Certain changes were made, to increase the drama in the films. After all, two Hobbits versus a giant spider is a much easier fight than Sam fighting Shelob alone. Plus, the separation shows how corrupt Gollum has truly become by this point, heightening his appearance at Mount Doom even further. Similarly, Jackson and the writers changed Faramir a great deal, because Tolkien wrote him as someone who would refuse the Ring's power without a second thought. To establish the inherent evil of the Ring, it has to be something even the purest of souls would fall victim to...otherwise, anyone could use it to defeat Sauron if they were pure enough.
so i DIDNT EAT THE BREAD
Yes, it is OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that Sam isn’t coming to some revelation that he didn’t really eat the bread that he had no memory of eating. He had given up at that point and left because Frodo told him to. He had lost his resolve. Seeing the bread gave him that resolve back. It reminded him that that sonofabitch evil Gollum framed him so he could get Frodo alone to kill him and take the ring, dooming all of Middle Earth. Sam gets really pissed and decides he needs to kick some ass.
When sam sees the bread in crumbs he knows that SMEAGOL was the one who purposely threw it off the mountain. It wasn't that he realized he didn't eat it. He realizes that smeagol was purposely trying to antagonize sam to get frodo by himself so he could take the ring.
Al3xh413 cause when he saw the bread in crumbs that was proof without a doubt that gollum did it.
Nothing more embarrasing then critics who misinterpret a scene or review a film without watching it first.
@@raferalstonisgoat4457 He knew it already. Seeing the crumbs shouldn't have given him this sudden burst of motivation to go help Frodo. He already knew Gollum was putting him against Frodo, Sam should have gone back to him as soon as he was cast out instead of waiting to find the bread.
Let's face it, that scene was oh there for dramatic purpose and doesn't really make a lot of sense.
@@sandernielsen8018 Second only to fans trying hard to excuse a scene that doesn't make sense.
guyverjay.... Very true, and that is not the only part he misinterpreted. He said Frodo told Sam to leave because he believed Sam had eaten the bread. Nope, he told Sam to leave because Gollum convinced him that Sam wanted the ring, and when Sam said he could hold it for just a while, Frodo was overcome by the jealousy of the ring. When Sam found the bread, he realized that everything was a plot orchestrated by Gollum to separate the two. He realized that Smegal was actually back to being Gollum and that Frodo was in immediate danger that he was unaware of. That is why the moment was important and why Sam had an instant change of heart.
By far my favorite aspect of the entire story is sam and frodo's friendship. I don't look at the way it's done in the movies as homosexual, it's just a form of admiration and loyalty toward one another. friendships should certainly be about the care you have for the other person, it shouldn't have to be romantic to be that way.
It wasn’t romantic tho?
No one thought it was romantic
@@lazerfrogstudios NC literally listed it as one of the moments in the video
Maybe its a brotherly relationship
Thing is, relationships between men vary in by culture. In other parts of the world it is perfectly normal for two men who are friends to greet each other with a kiss for example. In various Middle-Eastern countries, men holding hands while walking together as friends is normal too and not consider homosexual at all. And homosexuality is very frowned upon rather heavily in many places over there.
So I don't take any issue with how Sam and Frodo interact. They're hobbits for one, and this is a totally different world with different cultures and logic.
I personally really liked Gimli's silly moments. It added some much needed lighter moments in a mostly serious movie.
There's nothing wrong with adding a humorous side to a character. It Indeed lights things up if done properly. The problem, however, is that they reaaaaally overdid it.
For example, in the drinking scene they could've made him just fall asleep on the table while angrily mumbling, admitting the fairly stupid situation his hardheaddedness got him into. Instead they went the slapstick route.
@Marshall Mathers the 4th Dude WTF? Honestly >none
@Marshall Mathers the 4th It was actually just John Rhys Davies, not Hollywood direction. He just did random stuff and improvised quite a lot.
Marshall Mathers the 4th wow calm down
@Marshall Mathers the 4th wait... hold up... you have a problem with toilet humor but your account is based on eminem? Have you listened to his music?
That music between the pics is actually killing me 😂😂😂
3:37 "I'd much rather live the real way"
Fucking lost it. Lol
I almost died when Legolas got the 'I'm a Mutherfukkin T-Rex' song, choked on my drink from laughing so hard
The worst flaw: They forgot Gandalf's hat half the time and then Gandalf the White doesn't have one
Weird I never noticed that.
I think the last time we see it is in Moria somewhere. Must've lost it in there.
@@jamlym4974 He tossed it aside right before the orcs raided the room they were in.
I disagree with #1. The ring is like a beacon of bright light for Sauron, so if the ring was high in the air, it would be a huge blip on his radar and he would have seen it right away and sent the nazguls or whatnot after them. Nobody fucks with the nazguls - not even eagles.
plus the point of why frodo held off the corruption of the ring and not a powerful wizard or a magical being was because he was a humble creature
+Mir Mir Plus everything else that's wrong with the "Eagle solution".
+Claus Jensby Madsen The eagles stopped and fought the Nazgul in the last battle of Return Of The King, Arwen killed one of their mounts and the most powerful of them, and Aragorn defeated them all single handedly in the first movie. Also Sauron was looking directly at the ring at the end of the saga and still didn't saw it, so all of what you said is nonsense.
He saw it. Also, you meant see. But the fact is, they were fairly isolated at that point and it would have taken a while for servants of Sauron to reach them. He was too weak to manifest a corporeal form, so him seeing it and him getting it, are not the same thing.
+Roberta Tallienne The Nazgul were there, later, when Frodo uses the ring Sauron perceives him and sends the Nazgul to get him. The scene when Frodo is directly under the light of the Eye has always confused me, Sauron should have seen the ring, but when Frodo hides he's like "Oh, it was nothing. Hey, an army!" So no, Sauron didn't saw it. And I think I meant saw.
Denethor looks like a guy who could use the line "You are tearing me apart, Lisa!" xD
I'M FED UP WITH MIDDLE EARTH!
@@Flowerbarrel So anyway, how's your sex life?
@Patrick Buerke He cannot tell you that, it's confidential.
"Oh, hi Gandalf."
Saruman isn't even a human he's a Maia, more specifically, Istari
But that's never established in the movies, in fact the Maiar are not even mentioned. As far as movie-going audiences are concerned, Saruman is just a very old, powerful and wise human. Same goes for Gandalf.
@@russellbrown6888 at the same time, Gandalf states that he has walked the earth for "300 lives of men" indicating he is either immortal like the Elves or extremely long lived. So while it is never established that he is a Maia, it's at least implied that he isn't actually human.
Russell Brown Yeah right because him coming back to life after a tour through time and space is what a human can do in this low magic medieval setting lmao
"Fantasy novel" you're splitting hairs if you're suggesting a wizard couldnt prolong his own life. What was that thing called again, The philosopher's stone?
🤔
You monster for reminding me of the bore that was the silmirrilion.
if the eagles flew to mordor, they would've stood out like a sore thumb.
I was able to find about 7 reasons why trying to use the eagles to fly to Mordor wouldn't have have worked
@@satanbrony9235 I could find 8 reasons why it would have worked at least when we only consider the movie logic. They should have established it better why they cant fly in and not show them easily taking out Fellbeasts like it was no biggie. But i guess some people just want to live in their own fantasy world where lotr is a flawless movie.
@@Jebu911 I'm sorry, did you forget about the massive catapults and arrows that would shoot them down? Also no, nobody is saying lotr is a flawless movie. However, I will concede that the movies should have done better to explain this.
Maybe if you disguise them as those creatures the Ringwraiths were riding and have everyone wear black cloaks? Don't know if that would work but it would be fun.
I lost it at "So I DIDN'T eat it!" lmao
😂
I disagree with almost all of these. But hey, that's just me.
yeah, same here, but I still enjoy watching these
For me only number 1
me too! still enjoyed the video though
How much of a fanboy can you be?
+I Sir Laughsalot Yeah, it's virtually impossible to agree with most of these, unfortunately.
What's people's obsession with making best friends in movies into lovers?
EXACTLY!!! Frodo and Sam were friends, end of.
It's a little strange to me especially because it devalues friendship, and makes it look like romantic love is inherently more valuable. As someone who has tried dating his friends, I can tell you right now that many friends aren't meant for romantic relationships.
Oh God, Doug's singing in between each segment.
Just about made me cry
It was truly beautiful
I died laughing
@@simonwoods7112 same lmaaaaao
No the eagle thing is complete bull shit. They were able to turn up in the end because Saruon's power was broken and the forces of Mordor were in complete disarray. If they showed up carrying the ring they'd have faced the nazgul at their full power and the witch king himself who they had no way of harming. Then add in trebuchets, and catapults knocking them out of the air. Further since the Eagles are semi divine like Gandalf himself Sauron it would have been enough to get Sauron off his ass and into the fight and he'd have swatted them out of the air.
Furthermore, the Eagles are their own beings. It's like saying "why didn't America enter World War 2 at the beginning?"
People make choices.
Paranormal Encyclopedia
Eugh, I'm so sick of people making excuses for this bullshit.
Sure. The eagles couldn't have taken them straight into Mordor, but why the ever-loving fuck couldn't they have taken them, say, to Minas Tirith? And skipped several months of travel and obstacles when they clearly need to destory the ring asap?
Please, come up with another convoluted reason to excuse it, I'm dying to hear it.
Dan covered that prettty well. Maybe you should stop whining and moaning and move on?
Paranormal Encyclopedia
So no excuse? Got it.
Also, you can't accuse others of whining and moaning after making a post like this one bub.
Literaly the post before my last one explained it. So yeah quit moaning and move on.
11) Just Letting Gandalf Die [] 2:10
10) Those Bajillion Endings []4:21
9) Gimli's Idiot Moments [] 6:57
8) Legolas's Perfect Moments [] 9:14
7) Those Close-Up Shots [] 11:38
6) Denethor [] 13:16
5) I'm Not Dead! [] 16:50
4) Arwen's Life Is Now Tied To The Fate Of The Ring [] 19:27
3) Frodo And Sam's Gayness [] 21:33
2) Saru ... Who? [] 25:09
1) Those Eagles That Could Have Stopped Everything [] 28:05
12) the not-so-jolly-or-merry Elf, Elrond.
13) "Took a little tumble off the cliff"
14) WAY too dramatic
15) Aragorn: the king without any kingly personality
16) The Ring as a drug (seriously, the animated version of Return of the King had a better interpretation of the Ring)
17) The movie was done out-of order (Shelob was in Two Towers, NOT Return of the King)
18) No Tom Bombadill, no Black Willow, no Scouring of the Shire
19) "THROW MEE!" (So politically incorrect.)
20) As good as the movie is, it STILL pales in comparison to the book.
21) Why is Galadriel so creepy? Sure, she was supposed to be creepy in that scene where Frodo offers her the Ring, but that's it. In the movie, she's creepy ALL the time.
Anton Anderson Tom Bombadill didn't do anything significant in the story, so I think it is OK he wasn't there.
The movie would be to long.
I disagree with you in everything. Y believe you didnt unsterdstand the entire point of the movies...
Vojtěch Korhoň Well Bombadil does give Merry a special dagger that can harm the Nazgul, which Merry uses to help kill the Witch-King, but that's about it.
Point 1. Gandalf has a fricking balrog attached to his feet. How they supposed to help him?
Actually the whip drags him to the edge but then it uncoils from his foot.
how about that bridge is broken, weakened and could still collapse? but no, add more weight to the edge of it to save one member, why not risk the fate of middle earth for the sake of Gandalf? it's not like Frodo could do the job without him
Was way better in the book. He didn't catch the edge, he just disappeared. They had no chance to get to him even though Aragorn and Boromir tried to.
@@KingGhidorah777 Yes maybe you miss the point where Orcs start shooting at them and then them runing into the forrest becouse if they stayed in the open at night they would be killed.
A balrog attached to his feet? I'm sure it couldn't QUITE be so... Or Gandalf would snap in half!
Besides, the problem that Critic mentioned wasn't about if they *could* do it or nor, but instead why didn't they *even make an attempt at it!!*
I watched Return of the King in theaters when Denathor jumped off the ledge everyone started clapping.
I thought Sam realized then that Gollum got rid of the bread on purpose.
+Berta Vierlein Yeah, I think that Sam thought he was possessed by the ring and that's why he would ate the bread and wouldn't remember it, so he left to prevent himself from hurting Frodo, but when he saw that he didn't eat the bread he realised that it was set up by Gollum so he went back in order to save Frodo.
That makes sense.
Ohhh, I think I got it now. The realization was that Gollum didn't steal the bread to EAT it!
Of course he didn't "like" any cooked food or elvish stuff, but everything tastes good to a starving man. Sam thought he was just being selfish, not plotting murder. I mean, he should've realized when Gollum pulled the whole "crumbs on his jacket'ses!", but Sam wasn't ever so sharp
On top of that, this gives Sam another realization of just how AWFUL Gollum is, that he's willing to throw away *rare elvin bread* just to get Frodo alone with him. Sam left Frodo alone with the worst creature to ever be alone with, and Sam fell directly into the trap of leaving his sole responsibility. The bread moment was a time for Sam get a grip on himself and go stop Gollum.
I have never seen any other edition other than the extended edition, so when number 2 started up, I was so confused, sitting there like "but he falls onto a spiky waterwheel!"
Not Revising Yeah they literally neglect to show any of that in the cut version. We see them arrive at Isengard, disregard Saruman almost entirely, and then Pipin finds the black crystal ball and then they leave. That's it.
You only watched the four-and-a-half hour long version of the movie?
I would never even have time to watch the extended editions of any or all of them.
Bookhead714 I've haven't watched the cut down versions since I discovered the extended versions. They're so perfect that you feel like they're over too quickly. I would never in my life watch the short versions again.
I started boycotting movies 20 years ago so I didn't see these in the theater. I did see #1 cinema version, then they came out with the EE and I told my wife not to waste anymore money on the theatricals. IIRC Chris Lee was interviewed on one of the extra disks and wasn't too happy with being cut out either.
That's funny, 'cause I've never seen the extended edition. lol
A giant eagle flying directly to the mountain through the whole Mordor to destroy the ring is not a good idea.
I personally find the meme tired and silly, like 90% of memes are.
yes, the nine flying those winged creatures would've torn that Eagle to shreds, it would've been like delivering the ring to Sauron via air mail.
@@UltimateGamerCC they also probably represent the “hand of god” aiding the protagonists. I think they’re directly in the service of the main god but I may be remembering incorrectly.
@@pantasticlaire3966 nah, if anything Gandalf is the hand of god in Tolkien lore. XD
@@pantasticlaire3966 As far as I recall the only time Eru actually did something in LotR was when he brought Gandalf back. The eagles serve Manwë, however, who is basically the leader of the Valar.
The too many endings is one of my favorite parts actually - they wrapped everything perfectly :)
He took the endings montage from the movie "clue"
The problem is that they're all edited to make you think the movie's about to end
@@smokefan4000 They are not tho
@@sebbo59 Maybe I was just an idiot when I first saw it when I was 10 but I kept thinking that. It didn't help that I really had to pee lol
I also like the multiple endings as well. I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t have a problem with the ending of The Return of the King. :)
Peter Jackson made Legolas into a Mary Sue.
+James Robinson Le Gary-Stu
He's such a badass I can kinda ignore it though
Not just a Gary-stu but a Captain Obvious as well.
+r0bw00d
That's not the definition of Mary Sue at all
+Maeve Sundberg WAUGH
Not "currently", pretty much always. When it first came into use in the 70s it meant a self-insert by the author, but it quickly came to mean what you said.
I thought it was Gary Stue.
Yeah the whole Saruman thing was very odd and must have been a bitter pill for Sir Lee to swallow
Put back? For the cut? Wasn't it that they gathered again after a year or so to actually shoot the scenes for the extended editions? It's what I remember from the DVD extras.
This guy is simply going for memes. Some of it's funny, mostly it just shows a severe lack of understanding the source material.
Yeah NC used to be like the Disney Renaissance (funny & magical) but now its just Disney, something we keep watching because... nostalgia. Sad.
Dimitris Kalergis the nostalgia critic is now someone we only watch because of nostalgia…ironic
@@HeadCannon19 Exactly.
@Christopher McMillan very little research, on you need with the LotR movies is to read the books, that a lot of the things hes critiquing is simply from the books or takes 5 minutes to understand why, elves... were not there in the first place, Legolas scenes were just meant for cool tricks like a magician to generation aww moments, so yeah this guy just need to understand the why? and how? and so what? to start trying to answer the questions himself XD
I don’t know, he may just have a different opinion about the movies man
“Is it Seacrest? Is he safe?” xD
"Tell Bilbo I never liked hiiiim!"
Daniel Clark-hughes
Frodo: NNNNOOOOOOO!!!
I will not tell Bilbo that you never liked him!
Gollum: WE HATES THESE MOVIES, WE HATES THEM FOREVER
if i work with this i would not stop laughing trying to make the intro because its funny!! XD
@
But a fine ass, so it balances
The reason the eagles cant bring the ring to mordor is really simple. You dont even need to read the book to understand it. The giant eye would have seen them coming a mile away, would have sent the nazgul on the felbeasts, and all of the archers in mordor to kill the eagles. And just like that, he would have the ring. On foot, they dont see the hobbits coming.
One theory is Gandalf wanted to use the eagles, but couldn't until they got past Saruman's spies via the mountain. Him saying "Fly you fools" would have been meant to be taken literally.
Also. The eagles work for the Valar, if im not mistaken, and they doesnt interfere (much) with what happens on middle earth.
+Sibericus We'll never know xD
I like that theory though.
+Luna Zet yeah, their point of view is that the human got themselves on that shit (corrupted by power etc) so they have to get rid of the ring themselves.
It's the same reason why gandalf isn't using much magic, he has been sent to earth to "guide" the human, not to do everything in their place.
The eagles might take it they were drawn to its power too i believe
Legolas:*kills giant elephant*.
Gimli:"That still counts as one!"
Legolas:Too badass.
Gimli:Cool but too goofy.
Ow my god,that background singing voice😂😂😂
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😆😆😆
I wanted to kill something
If you want to know why they didn't ride on the eagles to begin with, it can be summed up pretty easily.
The Witch King of Angmar
I'm no NC fan, but even he made good points that the Nazgul can't stop the Eagles. Gandalf in the movie used his light magic to scare their flying beasts away, he could easily do that! And Since in the battle at Pelennor, Mordor was throwing everything they had at the Free Folk, do you think he has another 1000 flying beasts he for some stupid reason didn't want to use and was hiding them for future use? Those beasts on film were all Sauron had of them.
*The Eagles didn't even need to fly into Mordor. Just drop the Fellowship off at Gondor. With Boromir alive. With the Fellowship intact. So they have months to rally Gondor and Rohan to attack Sauron before he even realized what was happening.* Then Sauron would be so caught off guard he'd have to pull all his unprepared forces to deal with the Free Folk, that there would be less guards guarding Cirith Ungol so Frodo will be less likely to be spotted, and less tired from trekking through weeks of wilderness with Gollum and Orcs to watch out for, and less PTSD from having seen Gandalf "die" (as far as he knows) and Boromir betray him. With that mental fortitude he just might have enough willpower to resist the Ring at Mt. Doom... you know how in the canon Frodo FAILED to the point Illuvatar had to pull a stupid Deus ex Machina just to get that Ring to fall (Tolkien himself said so)?
+CrabTastingMan Yes, lets use the beings Sauron would keep an "eye" on. Perfect plan.
You mean Gondor and Rohan should have combined their forces and attacked a group of fortresses that were located in a mountain range? Behind which Sauron had been amassing his forces for the past 50 years and getting ready for war? That is the dumbest thing imaginable. That would have also left Isengard and Saruman open to pillage Rohan at will.
CrabTastingMan the witch king destroys gandalf's staff. He wasn't present when gandalf makes them retreat, plus hundreds of human archers would have attacked them if they didnt. The light was more of a distraction than a harm for them
I always kind of felt like they were similar to a "separate nation". Maybe they could have some sympathy for the plight of all these people, and they might help out in some cases, but they weren't interested in forming an army on their behalf to fight their battles for them. Like if a neighboring country was in the middle of a civil war and you felt for one side and would rescue someone if you saw them, but like heck are you signing up your children to go over there and fight their fight.
We never really see much of the eagles, so we can't really know how 'invested' they were in this whole fight.
Fan theory: Gandalf's plan had always been to travel in the direction of the eagles, but kept the plan secret until they were close enough in case someone got captured and would reveal the plan.
Once they travel through the mines of moria though, they meet the balrog and at the moment he's hanging on the cliff side, he quickly spills the beans and sais "Fly, you fools".
Nobody understood it sadly, and later he is resurrected as gandalf the white and couldn't remember his plan anymore.
Mind blown!
No, that's stupid, I don't even need to explain, that's stupid.
+gerben ferwerda "I don't agree with it, so it must be stupid" Good explanation my friend.
Anyway I'll just leave this here. guff.com/this-genius-theory-completely-redefines-the-way-youll-see-lord-of-the-rings
+yannick hanegreefs if he knew he was about to die what not just say it straight up? Instead of being all cryptic and mysterious why not just say "USE THE EAGELS YOU MORONS!"
+yannick hanegreefs Wait a minute, they're eagles. Why take paths when they can practically fly over mountains?
yannick hanegreefs It goes against canon actualy, and it makes no sense, why not tell at least Frodo or Aragorn, and if they needed the eagles, why not get eagles to the west-side of Moria, just a few reaons, there are lots and lots more.
One point about the thing with Legolas and the Elephant: Pretty positive that Aragorn was yelling for Legolas so he wasn't blindsided by a rampaging elephant because he was distracted fighting the orc horde. I highly doubt he was implying an order to nuke the elephant lmao.
Right. But after that, I'd sure would use Legolas a lot more. "Do this, do that, destroy this army, kill Sauron..."
Also Legolas killed one oliphaunt, Eomer killed 2. Even Eowyn killed 1 and a witch king.
I see no gay tendencies coming from Sam and Frodo. Friends do similar things all the time
Apparently not much pure is left existing on earth.
Everyone is corrupted like the rings had done.
Sam and Frodo loved each other as a brother and friend.
But then people have to interpret it as gay.
It's no wonder why the world is falling apart with so many people being like snakes who will stab one another in the back and twist things into their own level.
People now just can't understand a level like that of loyalty without thinking it must be gay.
I guess in a way I can see why some can't understand it because not many have ever had a true friend like that in these times.
The whole point is that hobbits don't have the greed and corruption of men like here.
Sad that people can't aspire to be more like that.
@@truesoulghost2777 I agree that's one of the reasons a hobbit was a good choice to bear the ring. Sams friendship also helped to comfort Frodo from the burden of the ring.
@@truesoulghost2777 It's idiotic that you portray romantic love as something corrupt.
The Eagles weren't used because they don't owe anyone shit, they are damn Eagles. Gandlaf was damn lucky they showed up twice. Also the moth messaging system probably takes a *REALLY* long time. Hell maybe Gandalf did ask them and they were like "No, we're goddamn Eagles fuck you."
The reason why they didn't use the Eagles was cos when they arrived at the black gate they were immediately attacked by fell beasts the whole point of the fellowship was that they could take the ring to mordor unnoticed
+T Brady who the fuck is lady cate
+T Brady It's one thing for Galadriel to create a protective shield in Mirkwood. It's quite another to do so in *Mordor*, where Sauron's power is strongest.
yep bad movie to try and reinvent a story, but then lazily requires people to turn to the source to try and make sense of it all - which fails.
Adrijana Radosevic'because "fell beasts" don't do shit without their Nazgul riders.'
Just because we don't see any fell beasts without Nazgul riders doesn't mean that they can't have other riders, nor that they can't do anything without a rider. They were likely created in mockery of the eagles, in the same way that trolls were created in mockery of the ents, and orcs were of elves. While this means they individually they were probably weaker, but there could easily have been more than the 9 used as mounts by the Ringwraiths.
'While the LotR movies were being made, Galadriel didn't have such powers.'
She was using them to defend Lothlorien. She repulsed no less than 3 full-scale assaults, although it's not mentioned in the films, or even in the main story of the book, but rather the appendix chronicling the timeline of the war.
'why couldn't she do it and protect Rivendell from the Nazgul during their attack at the Ford?'
Elrond was doing that, with *his* ring, thus explaining what he was doing when the Nazgul were chasing his daughter (who is actually old enough to take care of herself, by the way. She's over 2700 years old when she first meets Aragorn!)
As for the rest, Galadriel *wasn't there!* It's hard to use your powers to help when you're somewhere else, even with that Mirror. Also, to use their powers in this way (especially the rings) while Sauron was awake would draw his attention, which would, in Gandalf's case, defeat the purpose of the Fellowship sneaking quietly to Mordor to destroy the One Ring.
I understand your issues, and agree that some of them should have been addressed in the movies, if only in a comment like 'Lothlorien was attacked, but the Lady fought them off.'
that singing voice between the clips must be the new björk. epic lol
I’ve never seen number eleven as being a stupid moment. I’ve always thought that if Frodo had attempted to pull Gandalf up and he had lost his grip while he was holding him, he would have been pulled down by the Balrog too. Thus, they had to choose the lesser of the two evils: let Gandalf die and have Frodo live or let Frodo try to save him and have him be killed as well.
How would Frodo have been pulled down by the Balrog? The film clearly shows that the whip is no longer around Gandalf's leg and the Balrog has fallen away from them into the abyss. Gandalf is just hanging over the precipice, all that is needed is for someone to help him back up. The more one thinks about this scene the more one realises that Peter Jackson is a bad director, and his colleagues are bad scriptwriters.
Oh yeah good point. Maybe they didn't try to help Gandalf because in their minds Balrog's whip is still attached to him and could pull anybody that tries to help him down into the abyss as well. They saw the whip when it caught Gandalf.
Oh wait that was 7 months ago, sorry lol.
They didn't let Frodo try to pull Gandalf up because:
1. The Goblins archers were coming to fire at them.
2. He never would have made it in time as Gandalf's grip was slipping.
3. He's the Ring bearer, if he falls off the bridge, the Ring is lost.
@@t.i.5528 Ok, 1 & 3 I agree with. The problem with 2 is that Gandalf just fell 2 seconds ago (10 with the slowmo) so "don't bother his grip is slipping" is not something they can conclude for sure this fast. And the way I see it his grip wasn't really slipping, he let himself go.
@@praetorian3902 They concluded that he could only hold on for 3 seconds, which it turns out, he could.
Actually I don’t have a problem with some of the goofy Gimli moment like when he was making small talk with Eowyn on their way to helms deep it shows that he was trying to make laugh while being social. For some reason I find this relatable for those who take long trip and just make conversation to past the time.
How come the eagle thing keeps coming up? The eagles refused to do it, that's why, that's the canon answer, and i've heard it said to anyone who brings up the eagles enough times that i can't believe anyone's *not* heard that.
Tbh, I still don't get it. Do they give a reason why the eagles do not do the whole thing all along, or is it that they 'refused to do it because they are jerks and they want more people to suffer'?
The Eagles would be shot down anyways.
they were supposed to use the eagles : "fly you fools"...
But then gandalf is delayed, frodo is already far and they can't know exactly where he is, so they make a distraction to help him.
That's a theory anyway
@Dark Star You are right but in the movies they do not actually address this... In the books it is fully explained, There is a reason why the Eagles will NOT take the ring...Namely their distrust of the Races of Middle Earth who in the previous war with Sauron became corrupted - They only help Gandalf as he has always shown himself to be above corruption...
...Which is another point the movie FAILS to Explain!!!!
Why do the Eagles consider Gandalf Incorruptible? Known to those who read the books but NEVER ADDRESSED IN THE FILM!!! In the final Scenes as Gandlaf, Galadriel and Frodo leave for the Grey Havens, BOTH GALADRIEL AND GANDALF ARE WEARING RINGS YOU NEVER SEE IN THE MOVIE!!!
In the book it finally becomes that point of realization - Galadriel and Gandalf are wearing two of the original Rings - They had managed to use their powers to hide them from Sauron, but other than that are powerless to use them against him... The One Ring Rules them all as we know!!!
That then also explains HOW GANDALF WHO IS HUMAN LIVES SO DAMN LONG! He is well known to the Hobbits in The Hobbit Trilogy and given Hobbits live for around 100 Years themselves, to be that well known means Gandalf must be at least 500 YEARS OLD by the time of the first Hobbit Movie!!!
How does a Human Live that long? The ring!!! Its a GOD RING - They were all GOD RINGS! But Sauron wanted to be the ULTIMATE GOD hence he Created THE ONE RING!
Yes, It is indeed finally explained in the books closing act that Gandalf and Galadriel are GODS in Mortal Form!!!
But the movie adaption to the movie - It missed all this to avoid the Exposition... And instead gave us many other un-needed storylines!!!
Still, regardless - I love these films and always will - They managed to make them amazing and I love them!!!
The Hobbit Trilogy on the other hand... Oh Jesus... :(
Warren Marris Gandalf isn't human.
So glad you pointed out how much of a mary sue Legolas is.
+Edward Gil (ObaREX) It's sad, because he had more of a personality in the books.
Silent Solitude I know. The books went into more detail and actually took time to build him up as an ace badass. However, the films sorta just figured everyone had read the books so they just... made him an ace but with little build up.
I didn't read the books till only recently, back when I saw the movie I was like "soooo, what's the big deal with this guy?"
Edward Gil Yeah, I haven't watched the movies for ages though, so I might be being to harsh.
Edward Gil hes thousands of years old, not much of a surprise that hes hardcore
Edward Gil - not as Mary Sue as the noldorin heroes of the first age
Frodo and Sam had to travel all the way through middle earth together, the fact that they have an extremely strong bond doesn’t make them gay. Just sayin 🤷♂️
NC already stated that the intention was most likely to reflect friendship, but is executed in such a cheesy way it comes off as something other than platonic friendship
@@northchurch753 i still think that Frodo did have a thing for Sam, but it stayed platonic cause Frodo knew Sam had his eyes on a particular woman.
"Having a friendship and being in love are two different things."
Something shippers should learn
Not everyone is a shipper....some people are gay and have intense interactions with the people they are attracted to or date because - gasp, sometimes you're close to and confide in people you're in love with- and we wish people would recognize that when it's two people of the same gender and not just when it's hetero people. I find myself wondering why no one who saw the movies without reading the books wondered why Sam and Rosie came out of nowhere but had plenty of criticism for people reading into the Sam/Frodo chemistry. People will have their preferences in the end and complain about what they want to complain about, but they should unpack the fact that a lot of it is heteronormativity masquerading as moral superiority.
@@rocketpsyence If you're assuming what I think you might be assuming, I don't have a problem with LGBTQ couples. My issue is when shippers ASSUME a character is gay just because of two people of the same gender having a close friendship or being a confidant, like Joker and Akechi from Persona 5 or Deku and Bakugo from MHA, despite either of them showing clear cut signs of being straight. It's not having a superiority, it's getting pissed off at assuming a characters sexuality
The line “Still only counts as one” might be dumb but it gets me every time. Same with him saying “You’ll have to throw me!” I don’t laugh at that moment but I like it because it shows his pride and his willingness to let it go to win the fight. Many others would not be so willing to do that!
The eagle thing is simple: The eagle king didn't wanna.
Toby Sweetman lol
Toby Sweetman wrong
That, and you can't expose the eagles to the ring for so long, let alone allow them to carry it, or they'd be corrupted, and then you have eagles that are strong enough to kill dragons working for Sauron. They're just below gods in Tolkien lore, so letting them have an all-corrupting ring in their presence would NOT be a good idea. It's the worst idea.
"I can't carry the ring for you but I can carry you."
I think Gandalf just knows that the route is the goal. Every character comes out stronger than before. Aragorn is the new King and the alliance of elves and humans is renewed. People learned again to work together, and thats the real goal of the journey, not the banishment of Sauron.
In the bit where Sam leaves. Frodo doesn't send him away because he ate the food. He sends him away because he asked Frodo if he could carry the ring, so Frodo was worried Sam was being corrupted by the Ring. And Sam returns because seeing the Lembas Bread proves that Gollum had some kind of plan in it and was being purposefully malicious
Okay we can't complain about gimli's goofy moments cuz everybody love them
i didn´t
@@Galimah ouch no love for the lovable dwarf so cruel
@@LegatusLucius1994 and legolas became a cartoon character. aragorn is a hesitant pussy. in the book he carried narsil already in bree inn.
in fact, everyone were pussies.
Faramir never desired to bring the ring to minas tirit and gandalf didn´t loose his staff to no witch king. they never fought.
and dont get me worked up with arwen...
now look what you did..!! getting me all worked up. apologize!!!
@@Galimah I think its more suted for Aragorn to not wanting narsil and to be king.
@@olivertallgren the books are canon, not the silly movies
Much too late for you or anyone to ever read this, but the Eagles keep their involvement light because their patron, the Zeus-analog Manwe, is trying to limit his and the other Valar's involvement in the world. The last time they went all out, to take down Sauron's boss Morgoth for the last time, an entire sub-continent was shattered into _tiny_ islands and open rifts that spewed magma were broken open. The destruction was so horrific that Manwe, and the hosts that went out, were so horrified that even when they were invaded by Numenor 3000 years later they were reluctant to take up arms.
The result of that last skirmish was to literally change the way the world worked. Once upon a time, in Middle-earth the edges of the map were the literal ends of the earth with nothing beyond them. Now, it's a globe. And millions died in the change.
So yeah, the Eagles are loath to fully commit themselves, and thus their patron, to battle in an increasingly fragile world. The outright alienation and estrangement the new order of affairs created between mortals (and the elves are included in this category) and the Powers (with a capital "P") can't be ignored either; the Valar and other Ainur might be happy to give small rewards and acknowledgment to the mortals that do well, but they don't wan't to do it all for them either. That's what lead to the above continent and earth-shattering wars in the first place; the Valar trying to coddle and (over)protect the frail humans and elves.
The sum of this? There is good reason why the Eagles didn't just do everything. It just takes a thousand or so pages of reading esoteric myths that were being constantly rewritten all the way up to Tolkien's death and edited afterward by Christopher Tolkien to start getting the picture.
Thus, I can't blame you for getting annoyed over this plot point, but I also can't help getting annoyed myself because there is a good answer that takes more attention that you're willing to give to explain.
the valar and the maiar were based of norse gods.
Thank you!!
That’s probably a good reason not to include the eagles in the first place. If you have to write the equivalent of another novel where you jump through hoops just to explain why they don’t just fix anything then it might be a good idea not to include them in the first place.
They don’t serve the story in any meaningful way anyway. They are purposefully vague and not fleshed out characters, they don’t offer any challenges or develop the characters and they don’t flesh out the world. They are just flying deus ex machinas who make you ask more questions than give answers, texture or context. Get rid of them and the story is improved.
@@paulallen579 Hm, I'm not even too bothered by their involvement in the Lord of the Rings. I mean it's sort of cheap to use them but they are cool. I also think it's explained well enough by the fact that they really are not trying to attract attention and that using the eagles would literally be the best way to attract attention to the ring. However, the only real reason they're in the books is because they were also in the Hobbit and now that's where their use is sort of unforgivable. I get that they're gods with their own unique relationship to Gandalf but they're also kind of dicks for not flying the gang closer to Erebor. It's not like they were evading a massive fucking eye. Hell they didn't even have to fly above Laketown, they could have just gone around and dropped them off like, a days journey away from the Mountain just to be safe.
This is why you read the books
11. The balrogs whip was still around Gandalf's ankle, had Frodo tried to save him he would have been dragged down to his death.
Basically yeah. To say nothing of if someone were to try to pull Gandalf up, they would be stuck in place as they try to heave him up clear of the broken bridge, entirely not taking into account the weight of the Balrog and the high chance that if you lost your footing, you would fall in as well.
You serious?!?
Watch it again (I just did); the Balrog's whip is TOTALLY not attached anymore after Gandalf is pulled off the edge.
Cat Hat Um, no it absolutely isn’t. And even if it was, they wouldn’t have been able to see it.
No it wasn't. I mean how could Gandalf hold up the entire Balrog? Even if he was strong enough that bridge would just slip down with him.
And orcs were firing arrows
"So I didn't eat it!" 😂😂😂
If you’re not watching the extended edition you’re doing it wrong
First time I watched it was the Extended Edition and ever since I can only watch Extended because Theatrical is too short for me now lol
As a person that's went to a movie marathon, of all the extended versions, I would have to agree.
Anders Haapa-aho yeahhhhhhhhh
@scamanderous Normies would.
@scamanderous I don’t like the extended cut of Two Towers as much. It makes the film feel way slower without adding much imo. The other extended cuts are great, though.
Also that bizarre sequence when elrond heals frodo, it looks like an Enya music video
Although Enya *IS* awesome.
You say that like it’s a bad thing 🤔
Lmao
ok, i know this video went out a long time ago, so nostalgia critic likely wont ever see this comment, but for anyone else out there like me who is new to his content and hasnt read the lotr books, only seen the movies, this is what i gathered about arwen when rewatching the series, just to clear up some confusion.
Arwen is the love interest of Aragorn (obviously) and daughter to Lord Elrond, master of Rivendell, an elvish stronghold. when Aragorn leaves rivendell with the fellowship to go to Mordor, Arwen gave him her amulet as a sign of her affection. This amulet is her sole connection to the light of Eldar, which secures her immortality and protects her from dark magic. when she gave it to Aragorn, she surrendered it as a sign of her love for a mortal, which also exposed her to Sauron's evil. However, Aragorn, despite his love for Arwen, tells her that he cannot be with her, because he does not wish for her to die, and because he thinks that he might die in battle, leaving Arwen alone in her grief and despair. so, in order to prevent this, he tells her he cant be with her and tries to give her the amulet back, but Arwen refuses to take it back, as Aragorn still had her love, despite him turning her away.
In the events of "the two towers" we see Lord Elrond tell Arwen what he believes her future will be with Aragorn, living out the rest of her immortal life alone after he dies, if he is to even make it out of the war alive. This is where many become confused, as they think that the films are contradicting themselves. however, Lord Elrond does not discover that Arwen gave up her immortality until the third movie, Return of the King, and thus his vision of her future is actually untrue of what would actually occur, and Lord Elrond is simply mistaken. It is during the events of the third movie that we see Arwen have a vision of Aragorn, now much older, with their future child. This "sight" was inherited to her by her father, as he can see different possible future events in the form of these visions. Arwen shares her vision with Lord Elrond, and he has a change of heart, even more so after seeing her begin to grow weary and her hands turn cold, showing that the light of Eldar is leaving her, and revealing to her father that she had given up her immortality. Lord Elrond has the sword of Gondor reforged, a blade which has a blood tie to a number of fallen soldiers who are cursed to live as ghosts because they had forsaken their duty to the crown of Gondor. He gives the sword to Aragorn, who is heir to the throne of Gondor, and tells him that Arwen's fate is tied to the ring. this also causes some confusion, as many do not understand how the ring could have any effect on arwen, who is miles away from it. What Lord Elrond means by this is that as long as Sauron's evil exists and spreads (which is occuring due to the prolonged existence of sauron's soul because of his soul tie with the ring) Arwen will grow weaker and weaker until she dies because she is exposed to sauron's evil due to her relinquishing of her immortality and thus her protection from dark magic. After the ring is destroyed and Sauron is vanquished forever, her soul is saved, and she lives out the rest of her mortal life with Aragorn as the crowned queen of Gondor after Aragorn is crowned king and chooses to marry her after securing the safety of Middle Earth.
Sorry that was so long. hope it cleared up some confusion.
sorry, wanted to make a minor correction. the sword is called the sword of elendil, or anduril, not the sword of gondor. sorry about that.
22:37 perfect Gollum voice there! 😂😂😂
Right?! 😂
Lol the ring shrinks or expands to fit the wearer. The more powerful the creature the stronger & faster they are consumed by the ring. That’s why hobbits are so resilient to its corruption, they didn’t start out with much power to begin with. Not even Gandalf dared touch it because he feared what it would do to him. But no totally give it to the eagle “gods” a creature easily susceptible to the rings power that won’t backfire.
He fought the Balrog for eight days "From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak I fought with the Balrog of Morgoth... Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountain side". They def didn't specify that in the movie tho.
Just my nerd coming out - great video!
Well they actually did specify that in the movie. That was the only line given though. Exactly what you wrote and was in the books was said in the movie as well.
Uhmmmmmm they definetley did 😂😂😂 go back and rewatch the Two Towers
And how did they change locations and why exactly?
If they didn't teleport, did one chase the other up the whole mountain or probably a hundred set of stairs?
From what little context is given, I can't help but imagine Gandalf pursuing a giant evil flame demon the whole way or whatever the Balrog is supossed to be, from what I've heard Tolkien lore is mostly based on norse mythology, so the denizens of Muspelheim, realm of Fire and the Fire giant Surt (Harbinger of Ragnarok)seem like the most likely canidates.
@@jayk5114 I was a little drunk when I posted this and it probably could have been worded better but I feel like what I meant by "specify" was how he made it from "the lowest dungeon to the highest peak." It shows them fighting at the bottom, and then the top but nothing in between.
@sathya skywalker Calm down there buddo, your blood pressure is spiking.
Number one has been debunked
Frodo can hold out, because he is a hobbit
The very reason that the eagles would not take the ring is because the more powerful you are the faster you are corrupted (elves are an exception) eagles are just under Gandalf in the hierarchy who himself is just under Sauron
"Debunked" just means that someone has disagreed. Use a different word.
"Frodo can hold out, because he is a hobbit". Not correct. He can hold out because he's not corrupt. Despite what LotR fanboys pretend, this is a core metaphor in the book. The Ring symbolizes power, and the purpose of having three hobbit ringbearers; Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo, is precisely to show three separate responses to gaining great power, as well as three distinct ways of attaining that power, which is just as significant. Gollum seeks to use it for personal gain and becomes even more corrupt than he already was, and also attained it through murder in the first place. Bilbo uses it when it's convenient but isn't as preoccupied with it as Gollum was, although he's getting there by the start of LotR. And he attained it by theft, which is slightly less serious than murder but still not right. But Frodo only uses it as a last resort, sometimes not even then, and attained it through inheritance. Nothing about Frodo's possession of the Ring is corrupt, and neither is he. That's why he resists the evil of the Ring, because he himself is pure from the start. The fate of the three is determined by how they got the Ring (power) in the first place and how they use it. There are several key messages in LotR, but this is probably the most important one.
And hobbits are of course analogous of children. And this is the point. only a child can be pure enough to stay uncorrupted by power. But, as Gollum and Bilbo demonstrated, not any child. That's why the other races, representing various aspects of adulthoodl culture, industry and war for elves, dwarves and humans respectively, can't endure the Ring at all. They instantly want to use it for various reasons, and would then become corrupted by it. Elves are somewhat of an exception, as are wizards now and then. But even they refuse to take the Ring repeatedly in LotR because they know it will tempt them.
There is a religious allegory here and a political one, and both are flaming obvious. Again despite what Tolkien fanboys say. They have one quote from Tolkien vs mountains of serious literary analysis. They lose.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 It doesn't matter how much "serious literary analysis" you have, Tolkien still knows more about his universe than anyone else.
@@@joseywales1439 And authors don't like to admit to their allegories because they imagine that they are having secret conversations with themselves and their most exalted readers. If they admit them then even the stupidest readers will know.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 I'm not denying the allegories are there - they most certainly are. But in Tolkien's world there are very specific reasons that the eagles would not carry the ring - they were basically demi-gods in Middle-earth, and the ring's power *was* dependent on the original power of the user, that's why the ring-bearers were all Hobbits, they were the least powerful and thus least likely to become corrupted. As you've pointed out, even Hobbits can and do become corrupted by the ring, but as easily as they do, more powerful beings (like eagles) would be that much easier to corrupt. For example, Boromir became somewhat bewitched by it by simply being in it's presence and seeing it with his own eyes. Gandalf of course is a powerful being, but I believe the reason he could be around the ring is because he had a proper fear of it, and refused to touch it or even look at it for too long. As explained in Tolkien's other writings about Middle-earth, eagles are some of the most physically powerful creatures in Middle-earth - able to take down a dragon that crushed three mountain ranges when it fell. There is no absolute guarantee that the eagles would have become corrupted, but if they had, the war would have basically been over then and there, and Gandalf was not willing to take that risk.
@@@joseywales1439 Right. i just think it's a bit contrived and ad-hoc. It's as if he wanted a convenient taxi service for the times when he wrote himself into a corner, and then needed to cook up endless ways to explain them away again afterwards. The Ring is just one thing, but the eagles were there, saving Tolkien's characters from certain death, way back in Silmarillion, when The Ring hadn't been made yet. I think this is the laziest literary device in all of Tolkien's writings. Nearly embarrassing in fact. "Oh no, another hopeless situation! I wonder if the eagles will somehow swoop in and save everyone this time."
Eagles in the machine, man. That's all this is, and I don't like it at all.
The close ups increase the intensity and they were used in scenes usually revolving around the One Ring. So I think it adds to the immersion and helps you feel for the immediate yet internal danger the ring presents.
Even cooler, is Christopher Lee objected to the original sound effect of his character's stabbing; complaining that "that isn't how someone being stabbed sounds." Because he knew what someone being stabbed sounded like!
What?
Shawn Bean only Dies in good movies
Yes, and hopefully, Jupiter Ascending descended so badly it will never have a sequel where he CAN die. :)
I don't know, I thought The Martian was pretty good.
And good TV shows.
Who the hell is Shawn Bean?
GGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
So here's the deal with the eagles: (not only defending them)
1- They are under only the Valar's control, which means this argument at the end of the day is like asking why didn't the gods save them(i.e. dues ex machina for the entire story, yay then what's the point). It'd be like Zeus telling his servants to carry Odysseus all the way home. Not much of a point then isn't it? And Gwaihir befriended Gandalf after he was rescued from a poison arrow. This meant that although the eagles could help Gandalf in desperate times of need, he didn't have sway over them entirely.
2- In the book, and I know this is only concerning the movie, It's called the "cracks of doom" for a reason. They're fissures, and it would take actually going in the volcano to destroy the ring. Yes, it's the movie version but just an FYI.
3- Yes, this is technically a loophole. Tolkien used convenient dues ex machina devices (eagles) in many stories previous to lotr and the hobbit. This could've been shut down in five seconds if someone mentioned it at the council of Elrond and Gandalf said something like "Nay, the eagles are servants to Manwe only. And he has given this task to Middle Earth alone, for his will reflects Eru Ilúvatar." Or "Nay, Gwaihir and his minions cannot withstand the will of Sauron in Barad-dûr." And on and on. My guess is Tolkien knew that it was implied heavily that the Valar wanted the children of Eru to become independent from their godly parents during the course of this story.
I made a video about the reasons I found for not using the eagles, may I get your opinion on it?
The eagles aren’t a plot hole whatsoever. The eagles only made it to the Black Gate because Sauron was a little distracted, or did you miss that part? 😅
Yeah,plus the nazgul mostly win that fight.
The whole point of Gandalf letting go of the ledge is that he _sacrifices himself_ to force the fellowship of the ring to move forward, so as to prevent the ring from falling into the hands of the goblins, and by extension, Sauron. As to why Aragorn keeps Frodo from helping Gandalf, he does it for _the exact same reason as Gandalf_ , as he understands the imperative of keeping Frodo - and by extension, the ring - safe, so he prevents Frodo from risking not just his own life, but the very fate of Middle Earth to save a person he values deeply. Gandalf and Aragorn both know they have to serve a higher purpose than just protecting the ones they love. Read the novel, dude.
Sam and Frodo's "gayness": you really need to wrap your head around the British concept of a military officer and his personal adjutant. It is the idea of servitude to a degree of complete personal dedication that is reflected in Sam's attitude towards Frodo. Do not forget that Frodo is basically Sam's boss, as Sam is his gardener, and in the British class system of the early 20th century, this meant more than just an employer/employee relationship. Sam is the most loyal follower and helper that an upper class person could ever hope for. Remember how Sam calls him _Mister_ Frodo all the time. This is a reflection - and approval - of the British class system of Tolkien's time, and the difference in status becomes blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at how they address each other: Sam is always on the lower status side, and Frodo not making a point of it makes him a benevolent upper class officer in the eyes of any law-abiding empire-loving Brit. Like it or not, _this_ is the context that Tolkien wrote for, and yes, 80 years later we might have to use a little understanding of our own history to make sense of his writings.
And yeah, I am not the first one to point this out, but Saruman is absolutely _not human_ . As a Maia, he is basically a demi-god in the same tier as Gandalf (hence his convenient resurrection) and Sauron himself. Read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Sorry, bro, but with an author as complex as Tolkien, your bitchings come across as somewhat short-sighted.
Maybe it's because I'm 60 years old that i find your explanation of the bond between Frodo and Sam to be correct and appropriate.. I never once considered there to be any romantic idea.I'm American so i can only speak to my own culture as opposed to the English class system of Tolkien 's age but it clearly makes and. I've watched enough movies to have
seen this type of relationship play out and , well ,I just never thought it was anything other than loyalty to ones service.
THANK YOU SO FUCKING MUCH. Now, if we could just drill this into the minds of every person who wants to watch the world fuck, that would be even better! Sometimes shipping characters is funny, but it's so infuriating when people do it solely because they don't understand deeper levels of friendship and loyalty! YOU, SIR, ARE A SAINT. (And I learned something new in the process.) Again, thank you!!!
It’s about the movies and only the movies......there is no other backstory. There is no book.
@@MabuseXX HERESY!
@BZD -Darkblackros- I swear these people are so obsessed that they ignore that fact that the film should be able to stand on its own. The books cannot be used as a defense for the movies.
"Fly you fools"
YAA-HOO-HOO-HOOEY!!!
lol
Man, I made a good move watching the extended versions instead of the theatrical version.
Same
Anela more scenes. For example the scenes that show what happens to Saruman etc.
That means you didn't see them in the cinema during the original run.. THAT'S a big loss..
Marius Møller yeah... During the 3d movie you start thinking; Wait what the f*ck happened to Saruman after the 2nd movie? If you don't see the extended versions, you will never know how he died
HansWorst when I saw it in the cinema I didn't give to fucks about what happend, of course after that I watched the extended. But if you are a fan and never saw it during the original run you will never know how big these movies where
On legolas, he is immortal as are all elves so adding on the abilities of elves naturally they've had 100s if not more years to train
i envy the Elves, they get to live much longer and much fuller lives, we humans on average get 65 years, that for them is practically their puberty.
doesnt make the character any less boring mary sue.
In that case, how the hell did that army of elves get killed?
@@athalonARC From what I understand, they can be killed but they're not really dead. Their spirits just end up in a new body, which is exactly what happened to Gandalf.
When I first watched the lord of the rings I watched the extended edition so I saw Saruman’s death, but god damn they should have left it in the full movie
Or saved it for the theatrical cut of The Two Towers, which I would have done had I been the director of the film series.
To be honest the ending could have been a lot worse when you realise that the ending in the Return of the King takes up half the book. This was because there was an entire sub ark about Saruman taking over the Shire. And regarding the Eagles, Tolkien was actually aware of the plot hole they created but felt that they were a necessary evil.
I think he also mentioned that the eagles are pretty independent minded and were under anyone’s control and could be unpredictable. as well as the fact Frodo traveling on foot would be less of an attraction to the eye as he was a simple traveler
@@oscardighton8580 Yes you are right
@@oscardighton8580 not to mention the fell beasts and the Nazgul who ride them. Plus they had to go inside Mt Doom to destroy the ring.
#11: Orcs are immediatly attacking. To drag an old man up a cliff that would falling anyway while reaching him would be not sooo good. A lot of shots in these scenes are also slowed down and they seem further away then first shown.
#10: I like the many endings.
#9: True but the movie needed his comedic release from time to time.
#8: He is basically the opposite of Gimli and also over the top in his scenes.
#7: There i miss the understanding of these scenes.
#6: Denethor was crazy. Really really crazy. Considering he lives directly in front of the dark lord, constantly attacked by orcs and must fear anhilation on a daily basis and then must give up his position if the king comes back like he is an easy replaceable pawn which means the job he has done for the whole kingdome is in no way valued. Yeah, to get crazy... is not so unreasonable. And crazy people to strange stuff.
#5: Gandalf is a half god. He died and after he get back to his gods he was send back with more power to finish the job to secure the creation of allfather Illuvatar. Aragorn also got missing after the interception of the warg riders and came a day or so later back. And yes even in the books Frodo "died" from the giant spider only to discover he didn't really died (J.R.R. Tolkien liked his tropes). And don't make Gimli a useless fighter he is a dwarf, they live a lot longer than humans, have a greater average strength and experience to fight and elves are immortal. Legolas is basically the most experienced from him (seriously, think about a soldier that fought several battles and lived hundreds of years to refine his skills). But yes a lot of the shots are only made for the cool action.
#4: Yeah strange. But considering that the gods of middle earth send five half gods to the humans to fight Melkor (god of destruction and first dark lord) and then Sauron (his underling and second dark lord of middle earth) could leave the world tainted in some way (after all, even Sauron is an immortal half god that follows the path of destruction, or at least his crazy ideas).
#3: Yeah. I think they get a little too far with the whole friendship thing.
#2: Never understood why they cut it from the regular edition.
#1: The eagles are not tame and trained. Gandalf need to convince them. They are basically another sentinent lifeform like the humans. And it took Gandalf a lot of time to get the humans to fight against the dark lord (he basically needed a power up from his gods to be the new white wizard to beat saruman out of theoden and get controll of the second biggest human army of all middle earth) and even then, why would the leader of the eagles send his own kin to death for human affairs, while they would be like: "Yeah if the dark lord attacks we fly away to another continent or island"
And let's say they DID used the Eagles, like straight away, in the first movie. Would the movies then be even more fun? It would be more logical, but it would more bowring. In fact, isn't that the point of fiction? Defying logic?
In regards to point number one, I have researched and heard many points for both sides. Each have valid points. The only conclusion I could reach is this, "They took a calculated risk. That's it."
Karakla08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 It's a good movie that doesn't explain itself very well at many points. It doesn't matter what reasons you make up or come from extended sources, the MOVIE didn't show any of it very well. Actually listen to the review. Truly listen. He isn't saying the movie is bad. Just some bits needed more work.
Wow that is over 2 month old. At the time i wanted to provide some informations and also my opinion. I think i didn't said anytime anything against the critics opinion and also agreed on some things. And yeah, good movies but missing often a lot of context sadly.
I personally think a series would do a better job in telling the story of lord of the ring. I personally liked the pretty slow paced parts where they are about story and wandering around. Also i miss the part about tom bombadil.
Karakla08 Sorry if I misread the intent of the comment. So so many people complaining about this specific upload that it may have skewed my perception.
There’s actually a few reasons why the eagles things wouldn’t happen
I've always interpreted the lembas bread thing as just Sam reconsidering his decision. Obviously he knew that Gollum set him up but chose to leave anyway because it's what Frodo wanted. But seeing the lembas bread probably snapped something in his head that made him go "You can't let it end like that" so he went back. I don't know if that's what Peter Jackson intended but it makes sense to me.
That’s exactly what I interpreted that scene to be. It really isn’t that complicated to understand and I don’t know how Doug managed to overthink that scene. Sam did know all along that he did not get rid of their food and that he got mad since he didn’t want Gollum to win the situation and get him and Frodo out of that mess.
Sam and Frodo were never written to be friends. Tolkein clearly was writing about the archetypal servant who follows his master everywhere and protects him because his is a noble spirit. Friends don't refer to each other as "Mr Frodo, sir", that's a servant talking to his betters.
Toshiro Dragon masters and servants can still be friends, though. In the books Frodo said Sam was his best friend, sooo.
Your personal interpretation. Frodo's friends are listed in the book as Merry, Pippin and Fredegar. Sam is his gardener and systematically talks to and about Frodo as his employer more than his friend. The Sam character is a representation of loyalty more than friendship. Certainly not homosexuality. In some ways you find more of that in the books than you do the movies, like when he blushes after touching Frodo's hand in Rivendell. That is certainly an odd thing for a friend or a gardener to do.
Yeah. I think that it was intended to be a "loyal beloved servant" situation, but the way it was written... I don't really have a good argument for people who say Sam was completely in love with him, haha.
@Kat McCloud People see what they want to see. But it is a more complex relationship than either friendship, employer-employee or some sort of Platonic love. More of a mix of all three I think. And the only reason I would have ever even thought of the third is the scene in Rivendell when Frodo wakes up. Maybe Tolkien was a prude and I just don't get it, but Sam's behavior there doesn't really fit how a friend or an employee would react.
Tolkein stated in his writings that he drew inspiration of Sam and Frodo's relationship as that between a superior officer during WWI and his batman (not the comic one, the role in WWI). Officers often had extremely close relationships with their batmen, given how the latter would sometimes have to risk their lives for the former.
critic is wrong Gimli is still a bad ass, no matter how goofy he is....
+MrViral20 Its fucking John Rhys Davies, and in top form! I love how he was throwing stunt men around like crazy in the actual filming. They kept having to tell him to tone it back, heh. As for the goofiness, I find it kind of endearing, it also is designed most likely to play off of Legolas's absolute stoic and serious attitude at least at first. I love when they try to drink the other under the table, the "drunk" Legolas after Gimli was about to pass out was absolutely one of my favorite scenes.
Legolas "I... I think I feel something." (Me: Heh, Elves and wine, they get drunk all the time in the woods, I have read the books! They drink perhaps as much or MORE than Dwarves!)
Gimli (indecipherable words, then a smile and pass out)
Legolas (watches Gimli tip over backwards...) (Me: LMAO!)
+MrViral20 I fucking loved Gimli! If it werent for him, the trilogy would have been too fucking depressing to even get through!
exactly... gimli is love gimli is life...
Gimly, the most beloved dwarf of cinematic history. A real charming, goofy, and badass charachter like no one.
My biggest issue with this whole franchise is how they portrayed Gandalf as a wizard, yet he barely uses any magic. Whenever he's in battle he uses a fucking sword. Dude you are wizard, cast a spell.
The reason they didnt try to save Gandalf is because most of the group knew that the remains of the bridge could collapse at any moment so in a way Aragorn saved Frodo from killing himself. Atleast I think so.
While they were running form Balrog some of the bridges were collapsing so you might be correct.