Bar None, you are the absolute best interviewer. There is no fat on your interviews. Everything is intentional and you ask the best questions. For fans of movie goers, your interviews are the best and I can tell those being interviewed are far more engaged in your interviews, you can tell every time you are a breath of fresh air to them. I've been watching you for years, just wanted to take a minute and let you know I appreciate how good you are at your craft. Well done and thank you.
Great interview well done! When she was telling the story I was wandering when it cuts back to you will you be in tears same as me listening to this :D
A wonderful interview, thank you! You ask great questions and really encourage this intelligent, spectacular woman to really think and to share a precious memory. Subscribed!
“A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to” Such a Tolkien line, but it was written by Philippa Boyens.
@@Anchises I keep seeing your replies in these comments and each one of them embodies the obnoxious and joyless "ackchyually" energy that gives the rest of us Tolkien fans a bad name
More attention needs to be given to the opening monologue in the first Lord of the Rings movie. I remember sitting in the theater, mesmerized not only by the words but also by the images on screen. The filmmakers had the challenge of introducing the uninitiated to the world of Middle-earth, the history of the One Ring, and the major characters-all while doing so in an entertaining and dramatic fashion that honored Tolkien's vision. It is some of the best writing and filmmaking in cinematic history and deserves more recognition than it receives.
The opening monologue, and the way that fragments of the early chapter where Gandalf dumps all of the lore in one long long night are used throughout the first two acts. The Academy inexplicably felt otherwise, but that's some of the best adaptive work ever put to screen. Using the dialogue about Bilbo's pity for Gollum as a lead-in to the battle and disaster in Moria in particular; the film's moral centre is explicitly made part of the dramatic climax in a way that I'll never not be in awe of.
It's up there for sheer badness with the Blade Runner voiceover. Bad, as in unnecessary. People would have figured it out as the information was revealed - as the characters learned of it. Why did we need to hear and see that when later on Gandalf tells Frodo anyway?
It's absolutely incredible to me that Disney haven't tapped up Boyens to write a Star Wars movie. She should have been one of the most sought after screen writers in Hollywood after Lord Of The Rings but it's like Hollywood assumed it was all Jackson (who deserves a lot of credit, don't get me wrong) and ignored her. As an accomplished, Oscar winning writer of a highly acclaimed fantasy series, not to mention a huge Star Wars fan, it seems so obvious to me that she would have been an obvious choice to write the Star Wars sequels instead of letting Abrams do his copy paste approach.
Fran and Philippa were his secret weapon on LOTR. Sam's speech in Two Towers was written on the fly by Fran I believe, and she directed Gollum's first scene with himself too.
@@Anchises Exactly, her one good change was gollums and smeagols exchange, but it wasnt necessary, just made his inner turmoil more obvious for regular viewer. The other changes had a whiff of agenda that only grew stronger over the years as they showcased in war of rohirrim by sidelining helm hammerhand by his unnamed daughter. If anything, I am convinced we have Jackson to thank for reigning those two in and not allowing any more changes to tolkiens lore.
Writing an original script, even if a sequel, is totally different than writing an adaptation. It’s “absolutely incredible” that you are surprised by this.
People often underestimate the excellent work of the screenwriters on the LOTR films, who totally rearranged major elements of the story yet managed to deliver the core spirit of the stories so faithfully that it felt very seamless. The perfect balance of dedication and also being unprecious enough to change things when they knew it was in service of the stories.
And then they made such baffling decisions like the character assassination of Faramir. After Frodo completely falls to the dark side, which is not in the books, and tries to give the ring back to the ring wraith they shoot it with an arrow, which does something for some reason, and then and only then does Faramir start to trust Frodo, even though at that point he has demonstrated that any hack on the face of the planet would be a safer carrier for the ring, in stead of this tiny little man who has clearly had enough. It makes no sense. On the whole the trilogy is excellent, but there are some really sad changes. The most notable one is above, but also that Saruman is a lackey of Sauron from the start is not int he books but rather you have a three-front war for the ring which is much more exciting. That Gimli is the butt of dwarf jokes is also a shame. They did him real dirty throughout all three movies.
Being a huge Tolkien fan, I appreciate what you pointed out. Ronald was a wordsmith and, at times, you need to take a few steps back in the evolution of our language to understand his writing. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Stephen Sinclair did a great job of adjusting it to fit in today's world without putting their audience to sleep. It was a translation job, and the richness of Tolkien's language is lost on most people today. As a writer, and child of two teachers who loved the language, I have to work to keep my writing at a communicative level and not get too flowery as I have a want to do. Thank you for your thoughtful and clarifying statement.
They didn't come close to delivering the core spirit. They made a different movie that delivered perhaps the core PLOT, that was also good, but anyone who says they delivered the core spirit doesn't understand the core spirit of Tolkien's works.
It's ironic that The Hobbit movies have more dialog verbatim taken from the book when LOTR changes almost everything, and yet people insist The Hobbit isn't faithful because of what was added.
I always felt "you can not pass" was more a passive claim that the balrog wasn't *allowed* to. "You shall not pass" always felt more like Gandalf saying "I don't care if you can or not. It isn't happening."
For the screen I think you're correct. But in the presentation of the magic I think "cannot" is more accurate to what Tolkien was trying to convey. The magic he was trying to display was essentially the ability of these characters to alter the world in ways by their very will, and by invoking the powers that will and their own power spring from. When he says, "You cannot pass!" he's making it so, his words and his purpose are aligned and it is a spell. The Balrog cannot go this way, it is a truth of the world now, because Gandalf has made it so. And the only thing that could change that is if his will is broken. When the Balrog tries, the bridge breaks, not because it was too heavy, or because the stone was weak, or even that Gandalf himself broke it. But because the *Balrog cannot pass.* For Gandalf has spent much of his power and made it so. Obviously, different writers have different responses to different words. Phillipa Boyens thinks "shall" creates a temporality where at no time will this thing change. Tolkien seemed to be suggesting that time wasn't even a factor, the Balrog passing there just cannot happen, it's just impossible. That's one of the reasons magic is used quite infrequently, it's kind of a big deal, and it's also a way of shifting the rules of the world (as opposed to some of the "tricks" Gandalf uses, like hurling fire at wolves and the like).
Yes, exactly, and it's in the grammar itself, that shall is more of a command than can. Because shall is normally used with the first person, if you say shall when talking about another person, it's because the choice of it comes from you, the speaker, if that makes any sense.
She's so lovely. Thank you, Phillipa, for your fundamental part in making the adaptations work. There are many ways in which you did justice to and even improved upon Tolkien's source material.
Woah, she sounds amazing. And it goes to show you how much respect they tried to have towards LoTR, walking with book around, discussing the change even of a single word and then the absolute banger if an explanation. Woah. Great story, thanks for the vid.
Iluvatar is at the core of all of Middle Earth and creation. Changing "Cannot" to "Shall not" completely shifts focus from Iluvatar to Gandalf. Gandalf died fighting the Balrog and thus had no authority over him. It was the Valar and more specifically Iluvatar himself that prevented the Barlog from crossing the bridge. Gandalf was not more powerful than Saruman. Saruman was not strong enough to withstand Sauron in the palantir, so on Gandalfs power alone, the fellowship would have failed. If he had said "You shall not pass" it would have failed him, and in his hubris, he would have died to the Balrog and wandered formless for eternity. By stating "You cannot pass" he made it clear that he served Iluvatar and thus the Balrog was unable to seek the ring any furthur. The Balrog realizing that he faces the might of his creator, instead chose to kill his equal and die in combat. The Balrog was a remnant of the first age and constrained to a dark hole in the ground. He was the twisted form of a maiar created to serve Valinor, and instead had to live his life in a pit. He chose to end his existence in one last spectacular battle with an equal. So no, there is no "respect" being given here. It is a complete twist in the central narrative. It only shows how a simple minded writer with a pen, paper and some eloquent BS can fool you. Between this smooth brain and the ones at Amazon, all they are doing is the equivalent of watering down liquor to sell at a profit. You should be ashamed for being so easily mislead.
I agree completely and her explanation is completely logical and practical. SHALL just has that feel of a done deal, while can not sound more like a simply claim. And someone even thinking about it and coming up with a sensible reason to change it, I think that's why people don't hold many changes against them, cause in many situations they almost wrote Tolkien-like stuff.
I disagree. "Shall not," implies a personal commitment but the outcome is still indeterminate. "Cannot," removes anyone from having any power over the outcome, it will simply be. That is a better representation of Gandalf and the Balrog's roles and difference in power. The Balrog stood as much chance against Gandalf as the rest of the party did with the Balrog. A fight might ensue for, but the outcome is known.
4:36 I think “You shall not pass.” is a good line. But I remember that I was deeply impressed with the original line in the book: “You cannot pass.”. Because my understanding was (and still is) that Gandalf was not giving a command or invoking something or willing something that shall not happen by force, magic or rule. But in his booming voice he was simply telling the Balrog that he cannot pass, as a matter of factual ability and as a warning. Because he has determined that it will not happen, and he is telling the Balrog that he has the power to make it so. (The affiliations he mentions afford him this power.) - Why does Gandalf warn the Balrog? Because he can still do damage, even if he won’t succeed. (As he did.) So, he is telling him, in the simplest way possible: You cannot pass, leave us, and we will just leave as well. Or you are at great risk yourself. And you will not succeed. The Balrog is used to think that he will succeed. Because he is a very powerful being. So, Gandalf does not try to invoke something that will stop him, not at this point. But instead to convince him that he cannot succeed. Because that will spare both sides the risks and possible damages involved when Gandalf inevitably stops the Balrog.
I've always found it difficult to state why Tolkien might have preferred "cannot" to "shall not". Certainly "shall not" sounds more formal or even archaic. But I think likening it to a simple statement of fact rather than a threat is perfect.
The same reason we translate Petain’s “On ne passe pas” at Verdun as “They shall not pass.” It is a formal declaration, a legal definition at its core.
I think Gandalf says "you cannot pass" first. And then frodo shouts "Gandalf". Then after balrog takes his whip out and Gandalf does his incantation, then he says "you shall not pass". So he says both, but the latter is what most meme and remember
@@gardenstateknicks You are right, I just rewatched it. That makes the rendering in the movie much more beautiful than I remember it. It invokes all the feelings that I have about “You cannot pass”. And then Gandalf uses “You shall not pass” just before he stops the Balrog. Yes, this works for me. On the other hand, I still prefer the book’s version, where Gandalf says “You cannot pass” three times. Because Gandalf does not usually announce it when he uses his powers, he just uses them, when the situation calls for it. The only purposes of saying “You shall not pass” would be to boost his resolve, or, I guess, to imbue his magic with more power. But he does not need this at other times. Maybe this situation was so exceptionally distressing for him that he needed to say this. Even more so than during his fight with Saruman. But I doubt this. Anyhow, I think the film’s version is pretty good as it is, and I enjoy it. Thank you for reminding me of this.
I take it probably has a deeper theological implication as well, as in, the Balrog being evil is incapable of causing an entity of good any meaningful harm. Which is a common sentiment in Catholicism. Which seems like a very Tolkien thing to me.
I also remember my mom taking me out of school to see The Two Towers and The Return of the King on opening day. That wonderful woman waited in cold, snowy Minnesota weather to get us tickets. I'll *never* forget my experience watching The Return of the King. To this day I've never been so emotionally invested in a movie before in my life, and that feeling was palpable throughout the entire theater. Thank you Philippa for helping create such an incredible experience.
@JakesTakesTV Late to the party, but thank you for the interview. You presented yourself the way I hope I would if I had a similar opportunity to interview George Lucas or Ridley Scott (which is just an age thing, if I was younger I have no doubt it would have been Peter Jackson or Phillipa): giving genuine, effusive praise, openly sharing the impact Phillipa Boyens had on you, but never coming off as sycophantic.
Especially about the Civic Theater in Auckland. There are photos online. Everyone here ought to have a look. It's one of the most magical theaters on the planet - no exaggeration. That's what she got to experience STAR WARS in, as a rural kid. That will put a stamp on your soul for the rest of your life, and you might end up being able to convey LOTR to the world with that kind of soulfulness.
No matter what Phillipa does successfully or unsuccessfully the rest of her life, she's immortal for what they did with the original triology. It's just so wonderful and it amazes me how it seems to be even more popular and ubiquitous now than when first released.
When I saw Fellowhoship in the theaters I was just totally blown away. The scene with Gandalf and Frodo "So do all who live to see such times" was profound and done so well and is in such a wonderful moment in the film. There is so much meaning in the film it certainly had an impact on me when we do have moments in our lives where we are struggling and cannot find peace.
I totally agree with her! I must add the scene when Gandalf and Pippin are in Minas Tirith, the "white shores" scene... The way Sir Ian McKellen delivers those lines, his eyes, his breath, facial expression... Absolutely amazing!
I love how committed Ian McKellen was to keeping the movie true to the original text where possible. It's always nice to know an actor treated an iconic role as a labor of love and not just another job.
Great interview! I can feel your excitement talking to one of the most underrated heroes in LOTR! It's always nice to hear Philippa talk about the original LOTR. If I had a chance to interview her, I would have asked her more about the original 2-film treatment for the Hobbit (what are the things that the studio mandated etc...)
She got the line wrong in the online lotr reunion. Sir Ian McKellen was about to say “you cannot pass” but Phillipa said it was “you will not pass”. You should see McKellen’s reaction 😂, he was like “girl wtf you're saying” 😂
Studio didn't mandate 3 movies, they made the choice themselves because the structure didn't work in two parts and they had too much material. Part 1 was going to end after the barrel chase in Mirkwood, but the goblin tunnels/wargs was a better climax for part 1. Not to mention introducing the elves in part 1 didn't work either. The book is already naturally divided into 3 separate story arcs, so it was better to follow the book in that sense. Splitting it into 2 movies always perplexed me and I could never guess where the split would be. The moment they announced 3 films I knew exactly where each would start and I was right.
@ i remember they said that the original final frame of Film One was the introduction of Bard (remember that silhouette of Bard when Ori sees him?). I think that would make sense to have the split in there. Then the studio wanted to make it 3 films so they had to add some padding. That killed the rewatchability of the Hobbit films for me.
I could never put my finger on what exactly makes a great screen writer, but listening to her speak... the knowledge, the eloquence... the craft she clearly puts into her work... well, you can see _why_ she is an Oscar winning screen writer.
Ah, memories... I didn't take my ten-yeayear-old out of school, but I did take him, and (the same) 4 of his classmates to each opening night. It became such an instant, and important, tradition that I waited almost too long to make reservations, in order to be sure all the kids could be there. By that time, only one theater in NYC had tickets left. As it turned out that venue was perfect, providing a couple of memories that no place else could have.
This was amazing, thanks for the vid! I got chills when she described her Star Wars experience. I remember going to Star Wars with my brother and mom on opening day. No one was ready for what turned into a new era of movies and it was awesome.
Even as a book nerd, I approved this deviation from the original. Although had they left it, I would imagine Sir Ian would have delivered it as something like, "You can NOT pass!" and it still would have been awesome. Can I also just add that I got a big smile when she talked about Star Wars. I was eight that summer and my dad took me to Star Wars while my mom was working. We loved it so much, we dragged her along with us and saw it again a week or so later. Dad is 85 now and we've gone to EVERY Star Wars movie together. Mom's gone to most of them with us but if she's being honest, she's not as a big on the whole scifi thing as Dad and me.
Jake, you are such a gentleman, a lover of the art of cinema, and a lover of those who artists who create that art. That’s why your interviews are so insightful and draw out such enlightening conversations from your interviewees. Keep up the good work. Blessings to you and yours for the Holiday Season and for 2025 from Scotland!
“Can not pass” doesn’t need to be shouted because “can not” indicates that there is something in place that absolutely prevents the action, so announcing it assertively is superfluous. “Shall not” on the other hand is demonstrating the possibility that they could, but that they won’t, based on the will of the speaker.
I like the way she describes it as an invocation rather than a spell. It reminds me of the bit at the beginning of Return of the King (extended edition) where they confront Saruman, and Gandalf the White simply says "Saruman, your staff is broken" and Saruman's staff shatters. I love the idea of that, that Gandalf just speaking words creates the reality. Not some hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, but simply a statement of what will happen, and then it happening.
I love it when screenwriters get it. When I listened to both in my head, and "You shall not pass!" sounds so much better. I suspect Tolkien would have loved it.
I hear 'Shall Not', as a claim coming from Gandalf's will and personal line in the sand. While I hear 'Can Not', as a claim to what is, what has been, and the reality of how the oldest light of creation, had already set that bound. 'Can Not', is a declaration of fact, whereas 'Shall Not' sounds like a declaration of personal intent. Of course, I have never met with Tolkien, and I am only speaking subjectively. I do respect her perspective in script writing for the big screen…. just a random LOTR fan, with a solid fantasy world established in my mind.
You cannot pass is better. "Shall" is more uncertain, which doesn't fit. Tolkien would have hated the change. Absolutely hated it. Christopher Tolkien thought (correctly) that those movies were trash.
It's a shame I have to say this, but it's so refreshing to hear intelligent people giving intelligent and insightful answers, instead of the new generation of people who haven't got the slightest clue about how to make good cinema or tv. This radiates respect for the original material and competence to execute it.
Still hot after the latest rounds of Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Rings of Power? It's tough watching such beloved universes shredded to pieces. As a VFX artist, I've always focused on the imagery, little did I know when I began my career, the quality starts with the script.
@@patrickcoan3139 On top of that, let's put aside whether or not those, you mentioned, were good quality projects, the people involved seem to be the most arrogant, ignorant, obnoxious, full-of-themselves and unpleasant people I've ever seen. It's painful to watch them in interviews, because in the best case they have nothing to say, and worst case, which seems to be the case more often than not, they are aboslutely horrible people.
It's not an age thing. There are plenty of thoughtless, unintelligent, unappreciative people who are old. You just have a prejudice yourself which you don't want to examine.
@@SuperlunarNim Difference is, they aren't masquerading as intelligent, intentional or talented creatives. They know they don't have anything to offer beyond their opinion. But THIS age of filmmaking, music, even things llike video games, is lacking authenticity. Almost as if corporate profits are propping up helicopr chidlren and trust-fund babie's egos? The AI filmmaker world will be undeniable.
Lovely lady. The most powerful passage in the books is the 'Far green country under a swift sunrise' which was narration and not spoken by any character. It took my breath away 50 years ago and still does. In the film Gandalf says it to Pippin at Minas Tirith because it has to go somewhere.
I just needed to chime in and say that I was one of those parents. I read the books aloud to my kids and when each movie came out I took them out of school. I even told the school why I was doing it. No pushback. I hope they remember it as fondly as you do. I will ask at Christmas.
What a wonderful, talented lady. I love hearing her explain so much about the passion she has for her work. I'd love to hear a longer interview or just have her host a documentary. Thank you for sharing her story.
There are some language things going on here as well. Tolkien is using mainly old-English/Nordic/Germanic vocabulary, and so the bigger problem for him was probably “pass” which is French / Latin in origin, and there is no good short Germanic equivalent. The other thing is, that we are on a language journey from plain storytelling in the beginning, to biblical/epic text at the end of the story. I think it was a little too early in the story for “shall” because, of course, it reminds us of several Bible passages. Also “cannot” is Germanic in origin, so would have suited Tolkien better. But for the film version “shall not” was probably better.
Such an incredible and inspiring woman. Those screenplays are such masterful cinematic adaptations, and choices like these are what make them sing for the screen.
And yet, on a talk show (Graham Norton?) McKellan claimed that it was written "cannot pass" in the script, but that he mis-spoke the line, and it was so good that they kept it that way. That makes a better story, but I suspect this version is more likely to be true.
"I lived in the countryside, sort of outside of Auckland" -- aww she's a Westie -- "... 'cos we come from West Auckland" -- KNEW IT! All that beautiful description of the glorious Civic though, and she forgot to mention it getting smashed to pieces in loving detail in King Kong?! Aw now. Putting it on screen like that was fine work, and should be brought up whenever possible. It truly is spectacular and lovely place to watch films. I got bored silly by Gone With the Wind there for what felt like a month, but none of it mattered 'cos I could always just lean back, ignore whatever nonsense was passing across the screen, and gaze at the clouds and stars up on the ceiling. So lovely. ... and then later on I saw Casablanca there, and didn't even realise until the third act that the sky hadn't even been turned on. A solid way to measure how gripping a film is.
In System/Technical Requirements Specification documents, all requirements are denoted by "so and so SHALL do this" or "so and so SHALL NOT do this". It's strong language that brooks absolutely no opposition.
Greatly appreciate this small insight into the art and craft of the LOTR adaptation. This brief interview shows how appreciative and understanding Philipa Bowens was and is about language...which would surely have pleased Tolkein. I have watched many TH-cam reactions to LOTR, and in leaving comments I have done my best to point out that the movies were a collaboration between Philippa, Fran and Peter and deserve equal praise, instead of the reactors' focus typically being principally on Peter Jackson. I also like to point out how WETA's sets,, costume designs and props contribute too. I read the Hobbit in 1968 when I was 8 (same age as the publisher's son, who recommended the original manuscript to his father for publication) and was particularly captivated by the dwarf lore, so I got a particular thrill from the Dwarrowdelf reveal inn the movie. I read LOTR when I was 12 ( straight through, with no sleep for 64 hours!) and I could not imagine how it could possibly be adapted for the cinema and do it any kind of justice. In many ways I appreciate the movies as much because of what they left out from the original work, as what they kept, and/or manipulated... without the choices made by Peter, Philippa and Fran, I'm sure the project would have collapsed in mid-production. It's not 'just' the source material that made these movies so great, it's the care and skill of EVERYONE involved, beginning with the care and skill of this amazing triumvirate of director and writers.
Purely in terms of dialogue, “can not” invites “can’t I?” as a response - “shall not” is decisive and final and puts the onus solely on Gandalf, something he feared and did not want but faced nonetheless - Gandalf deals with a great deal of fear and doubt, more than you expect for a Merlin-type of wizened old sage-like character and it really makes him so relatable - his final utterance of “shall not” is his facing of all that fear - it won’t be the last time he faces it, but this was the final threshold before he took his place as the White Wizard
The difference between "you aren't able to" and "I won't _let_ you." It reflects the action more directly, definitely wouldn't be the same the way it was in the text.
The scene in the book and the movie fits the lore of magic/supernatural with "cannot" rather than "shall," because the deepest magic is speaking things into reality, e.g. Eru and the spirits speaking or absolutely declaring creation into existence. Thus, it's more appropriate. The former is an absolute declaration, while the latter leaves the possibility of overcoming the magic via a stronger will that's declared by the Balrog. Thus the former is a deeper magic that the Balrog has no will to over-declare or even the possibility of overcoming.
But to an audience the word "shall" invokes the kind of biblical essence that more closely resembles what you're speaking to here. It's an older word to our ears and feels higher. Plus, the "can" follows downstream from the will of the one who creates, who has deemed that the balrog "shall" not pass. It's more emotionally powerful to invoke something like the image of god casting lucifer out of heaven than to simply state fact about what can and cannot happen.
Cannot pass is actually important. It is a command from a wizard, now a threat or warning... It is like a spell, shall is not as commanding as can not! Had not noticed this until now... Her explanation fits better with "cannot" for this reason...
I think it's completely the opposite. You Cannot pass sounds like there could be a whole list of reasons why the balrog can't pass. It's too ambiguous. The bridge is too weak, balrog is too damn heavy, if you pass we all die, the traffic is too backed up that you can't get through! You shall not pass adds a level of personal commitment from Gandalf. HE is the reason the Balrog will not cross the bridge. It's way more of a threat!
@@optimusakcbut you cannot pass makes is seem more like hes changing reality and no matter what happens he makes it literally impossible for the Balrog to pass
Eru sang the world into existence with the assistance of the Ainur, because he created them with the authority to do so. The Valar are the greater of the Ainur and the Maiar (those like Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast) were the servants of the Valar. Being Ainur themselves, they also have great authority. Authority is the basis of the “magic” in Tolkien’s world. The Ainur have authorty to make things so, and so when they say that something is, it just is. When Gandalf says “you cannot pass”, he has the authority to make it so. There is no need for demands, he simply needs to make the statement. However, “You shall not pass” has 100% become one of the most iconic lines from the movies, so it works. It just misrepresents the “magic” system a little for people who don’t know what it actually is 🤷🏼♂️
My Niece was a high school math teacher. I called one of her classes her balrog class, because several students who didn’t ever do their homework would not pass
"You shall not pass" is more verbally romantic than "you can not pass" but interestingly, she mentions "go back to the shadows" when i think "return to the shadows" would have been a little better - though it might have been the cadence of "go back to the shadows" that made it a better fit. Regardless, they took a great book and made it even better, honestly, by improving so much of the dialogue. An absolute masterclass in adaptations.
This explains a lot, if Star Wars is one of her most powerful cinematic memories. I always thought both franchises went hand in hand. Nothing transports me to a different world like those 12-15 hours, in both cases.
The original trilogy of each are some of the best sacred-mythos in modern existence, but the hobbit trilogy was comparatively quite bad, and the next 6 star wars movies were just trash (especially the final trilogy, which were a defilement). They need to be re-done with the soulfulness of LOTR and ANH+ESB+ROTJ.
"You cannot pass," is about the hearer. "You shall not pass," is about the speaker. It changes the statement from a crossing guard with a stop sign to a duelist with a thrown gauntlet. "You shall not pass" also has a better cadence to it, four even beats. One. Two. Three. Four. "You cannot pass" has four uneven beats since beats two and three run together. It makes it sound weaker. What makes it iconic, though, is the defiant, powerful delivery of actor Sir Ian MacKellen.
The line "You cannot pass" puts the focus the Balrog, as if to say that it's not strong enough to pass. "You SHALL not pass" switches the focus to Gandalf, and his resolve to stand in it's way, at all costs.
Tolkien would have never written "you shall not pass". He would have found it grammatically questionable. The distinction has been lost in contemporary English, so the two are interchangeable now, but in the past, "shall" was the verb from reserved for first person pronouns, "will" was the verb form for everything else. So you would say, "You will not pass," or "I shall not pass", but never "you shall not pass". As an English professor specializing in historic languages, old english and norse and such, this distinction would not have been lost on Tolkien.
Hmm interesting reasoning, but I think "shall" works better than "cannot" for me because "shall" comes across as confident & brave, rather "cannot" as cocky and presumptuous of the Balrog's power.
I always felt that "You cannot pass" has the connotation that 'something' will prevent the Balrog from crossing, whereas "You shall not pass" means Gandalf will never allow the Balrog to cross. It's kind of a small thing, but I think it gives Gandalf greater authority in the moment...and she's right, it sounds better off the page.
I can understand Ian's trepidation about changing lines or intention from the source. Just look at the ire Michael Gambon (and Mike Newell) faced for changing "'Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire,' Dumbledore asked calmly," in the book; to running in and shaking Harry frantically in the film.
“You *_cannot_* pass” also gives the sense that Balrog doesn’t have the ability to pass, whereas, “You *_shall not_* pass,” is just as Philippa pointed out, but furthermore it also suggests that the reason is not the lack of ability, but is due to Gandalf’s declaration itself.
The great thing is that Gandalf actually _says_ "You cannot pass.", like he tells the Balrog, "Don't try it, bro. Won't end well for you", before he absolutely denies pass over the bridge by invoking "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
She respects and loves the original material. Never tried to modernize or update it, but did adapt it for a different medium and did it very well in my opinion. Wish more current screens writers had her level of skill and integrity.
They did modernise and update it, in many ways. They changed the whole way the plot was structured, for a start. They gave Arwen and Galadriel much bigger roles, completely changed Aragorn's character motivation, and changed how both Denathor and Faramir acted and behaved, amongst many other things. They did some of this in order to make it practically filmable, but much of it was done to make the film fit with the expectations and preferences of modern audiences. Which was, and still is, a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thing to do. Having said all of that, I also wish that more modern screenwriters had this much skill. The problem with ROP et al isn't that it has been 'modernised' - the LOTR screenwriters prove that is perfectly possible - the problem is that they are, very simply, badly written.
She ignored the Tolkien's criticisms of the Zimmerman script and commited some of the same errors herself. She cheapened the story, and also brought a "by the numbers" approach to the storytelling (e.g. Frodo falling out with Sam on the Endless Stair apparently because at that point they needed some conflict).
@@dimitarzlatanov1749 haven’t watched any of WoR. Maybe my assessment is off but i thought the movies were decently done. Yes there were some changes but that is inevitable given the scope of the books and tome limits of film.
In the terms of my own understanding, I prefer "shall not" over "cannot" because it instils a greater will into Gandalf's words. It's not merely a statement of fact, but a promise of fate. There is no power that the Balrog can call upon that will allow it to pursue the heroes. It is no ordainable by any divine or malignant force. The only way this is going to go is the Balrog plummeting into the darkness. The amount of agency that comes from this singular substitution of words thus increases both the dramatic and thematic impact of the statement itself because not only is it clear in the very physical nature of the situation that the Balrog is unable to pass, but there is simply no conceivable means (be it by any manner of intervention, divine or otherwise) that the Balrog will be capable of pursuit. It shall try and it shall fail. Gandalf's will is thus strengthened by the nature of the situation and the divine promise that there is simply no future in which the Balrog will claim the Ring or defeat the Fellowship in Morgoth's (it's true master's) name. In this way, Gandalf's refutation and denial is almost Biblical and more thematically fitting to the scene in the film itself, in spite of the original writing. Were it released with the original dialogue, I think it would not have had nearly the same impact and I really do prefer Boyens' version of the script better.
“Cannot” speaks to capability but “shall not” is invoking a will/choice to prevent something. “Shall not” is much more appropriate for that scene. Great interview!
And yet Tolkien, a professor of language, preferred 'cannot'. Gandalf is not expressing will, he is making an absolute statement of fact to dissuade the Balrog.
@@sovereignty14 I don't understand your point. Gandalf is trying to stop the Balrog pursuing them. Saying 'you cannot pass' is a stronger and more definite threat than 'you shall not pass'.
@@Anchises , you need to deeply reconsider the difference between “can” & “shall”; I write contracts for a living and there's a significant difference in the two words. E.G., it's similar to how children often incorrectly ask, “Can I go to the playground?”, versus the proper, “May I go…?” or “Shall we go…?”
With the way it's performed in the movie 'You shall not pass' works better. To me I do actually prefer the book version though, imagining not a spell but a statement of truth by an agent of the almighty, who knows enough of the world to know that it is not possible for the balrog to pass.
_"You shall not pass!"_ fits the scene better, like Philippa says. Gandalf is invoking the powers of the Valar, and of Illuvatar. It's a battle of primordial powers, not a bunch of mere orcs. The scene thus invokes a spiritual profundity, the real depth of the battle between good and evil.
To be fair “You cannot pass” seems like its even more powerful like he is literally changing reality and making it impossible for him to pass its not like you will not/shall not pass because whatever reason but because its literally impossible for you to do so
That change wasn't a big deal. I'm glad she feels a bit of chagrin about some of their other changes. Certainly, the prince of Ithilian has grounds for a defamation suit. Aragorn pulling a full sword out in the Prancing Pony was inexcusable. As was Arwen heading for the Grey Havens, or Frodo and Sam's quarrel on the stairs into Mordor. These, like many of their changes, didn't improve the plot and showed that they didn't understand the characters very well. Indeed, their grasp of characters was a problem throughout. They altered Aragorn, Theoden, Denethor, Treebeard, and Elrond in negative ways that, if anything, weakened the story. When you are handed the gift of true excellence to work with, you should have the wisdom to be very careful in what you change. I get that changes need to be made, the subplots with Bombadill, and the scouring of the Shire were reasonable cuts. I even get the Glorfindalization of Arwen. They needed to upgrade her content for commercial purposes. There were just too many times when they left Middle Earth and headed to "Jacksonville."
Another great piece of writing in the movies was when the Lord of the Nazgul says "No man can defeat me," and Eowyn responds with "I am no man. *stabs him in the face*". Way better and considerably more badass than the speechifying in the original text.
Thank you for watching my interview! If you liked it, PLEASE SUBSCRIBE! I’m posting new celebrity interviews every week!
I loved that you took a deep dive into Lord of the rings with that question. These people are my childhood heroes
Bar None, you are the absolute best interviewer. There is no fat on your interviews. Everything is intentional and you ask the best questions. For fans of movie goers, your interviews are the best and I can tell those being interviewed are far more engaged in your interviews, you can tell every time you are a breath of fresh air to them. I've been watching you for years, just wanted to take a minute and let you know I appreciate how good you are at your craft. Well done and thank you.
Great interview well done! When she was telling the story I was wandering when it cuts back to you will you be in tears same as me listening to this :D
A wonderful interview, thank you! You ask great questions and really encourage this intelligent, spectacular woman to really think and to share a precious memory. Subscribed!
The passion from this lady! Hearing her speak is a treat!... "Shall not" is a league more eloquent to boot. Great call.
“A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to”
Such a Tolkien line, but it was written by Philippa Boyens.
Really you know that's a Mandela effect cos I could have sworn that's a JRR line x
@@Anchises I keep seeing your replies in these comments and each one of them embodies the obnoxious and joyless "ackchyually" energy that gives the rest of us Tolkien fans a bad name
@@Anchises Thief of joy.
@@comicmoniker cool
The Internet makes normal people act weird. I wonder why we make it this way?
More attention needs to be given to the opening monologue in the first Lord of the Rings movie. I remember sitting in the theater, mesmerized not only by the words but also by the images on screen. The filmmakers had the challenge of introducing the uninitiated to the world of Middle-earth, the history of the One Ring, and the major characters-all while doing so in an entertaining and dramatic fashion that honored Tolkien's vision. It is some of the best writing and filmmaking in cinematic history and deserves more recognition than it receives.
They made exposition entertaining while other films dread its existence.
The opening monologue, and the way that fragments of the early chapter where Gandalf dumps all of the lore in one long long night are used throughout the first two acts. The Academy inexplicably felt otherwise, but that's some of the best adaptive work ever put to screen. Using the dialogue about Bilbo's pity for Gollum as a lead-in to the battle and disaster in Moria in particular; the film's moral centre is explicitly made part of the dramatic climax in a way that I'll never not be in awe of.
It's up there for sheer badness with the Blade Runner voiceover. Bad, as in unnecessary. People would have figured it out as the information was revealed - as the characters learned of it. Why did we need to hear and see that when later on Gandalf tells Frodo anyway?
You're right, the level of ambience is unbelievable, it draws me into the movie almost like in an hypnosis
I'm deeply touched by the way Phillipa talks of her work, how she clearly loves and knows what she's doing. This is what a screenwriter *shall* be.
I see whatcha did there....
The arrogance to think they know better than the author, that's what a screenwriter should be?
This was great! i hope we get to see more interviews with screenwriters. She has an amazing filmography
It's absolutely incredible to me that Disney haven't tapped up Boyens to write a Star Wars movie. She should have been one of the most sought after screen writers in Hollywood after Lord Of The Rings but it's like Hollywood assumed it was all Jackson (who deserves a lot of credit, don't get me wrong) and ignored her. As an accomplished, Oscar winning writer of a highly acclaimed fantasy series, not to mention a huge Star Wars fan, it seems so obvious to me that she would have been an obvious choice to write the Star Wars sequels instead of letting Abrams do his copy paste approach.
Fran and Philippa were his secret weapon on LOTR. Sam's speech in Two Towers was written on the fly by Fran I believe, and she directed Gollum's first scene with himself too.
@@chazharris Sam's speech in TTT is trite meaningless nonsense.
@@Anchises Exactly, her one good change was gollums and smeagols exchange, but it wasnt necessary, just made his inner turmoil more obvious for regular viewer. The other changes had a whiff of agenda that only grew stronger over the years as they showcased in war of rohirrim by sidelining helm hammerhand by his unnamed daughter. If anything, I am convinced we have Jackson to thank for reigning those two in and not allowing any more changes to tolkiens lore.
@@chazharris 100% true. they have a very grounded sense of story telling and they should write a star wars film. could even match rogue one
Writing an original script, even if a sequel, is totally different than writing an adaptation.
It’s “absolutely incredible” that you are surprised by this.
it has both in the movie, he says you cannot pass.... then he shouts You shall not pass
Exactly, just what I was thinking. 🙂
Yeah I just posted this and then saw your comment
He says you cannot pass?
@@jc2333 he does first, then shouts you shall not pass
@ “You cannot pass, I am a servant of the secret fire. Wielder of the flame of anor. Go back to the shadow flame of undune. YOU SHALL NOT PASS”
People often underestimate the excellent work of the screenwriters on the LOTR films, who totally rearranged major elements of the story yet managed to deliver the core spirit of the stories so faithfully that it felt very seamless. The perfect balance of dedication and also being unprecious enough to change things when they knew it was in service of the stories.
And then they made such baffling decisions like the character assassination of Faramir. After Frodo completely falls to the dark side, which is not in the books, and tries to give the ring back to the ring wraith they shoot it with an arrow, which does something for some reason, and then and only then does Faramir start to trust Frodo, even though at that point he has demonstrated that any hack on the face of the planet would be a safer carrier for the ring, in stead of this tiny little man who has clearly had enough.
It makes no sense.
On the whole the trilogy is excellent, but there are some really sad changes. The most notable one is above, but also that Saruman is a lackey of Sauron from the start is not int he books but rather you have a three-front war for the ring which is much more exciting. That Gimli is the butt of dwarf jokes is also a shame. They did him real dirty throughout all three movies.
Being a huge Tolkien fan, I appreciate what you pointed out. Ronald was a wordsmith and, at times, you need to take a few steps back in the evolution of our language to understand his writing. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Stephen Sinclair did a great job of adjusting it to fit in today's world without putting their audience to sleep. It was a translation job, and the richness of Tolkien's language is lost on most people today. As a writer, and child of two teachers who loved the language, I have to work to keep my writing at a communicative level and not get too flowery as I have a want to do. Thank you for your thoughtful and clarifying statement.
They didn't come close to delivering the core spirit. They made a different movie that delivered perhaps the core PLOT, that was also good, but anyone who says they delivered the core spirit doesn't understand the core spirit of Tolkien's works.
It's ironic that The Hobbit movies have more dialog verbatim taken from the book when LOTR changes almost everything, and yet people insist The Hobbit isn't faithful because of what was added.
@@kg4wwn I came for the gatekeepers and they didn't disappoint. Yours is one opinion and it's just that, an opinion
This was quite a brilliant interview, thanks.
I always felt "you can not pass" was more a passive claim that the balrog wasn't *allowed* to. "You shall not pass" always felt more like Gandalf saying "I don't care if you can or not. It isn't happening."
I was thinking much the same thing - 'cannot' is more a matter of fact while 'shall not' carries a bit more of a sense of intent and challenge.
EXACTLY
For the screen I think you're correct. But in the presentation of the magic I think "cannot" is more accurate to what Tolkien was trying to convey. The magic he was trying to display was essentially the ability of these characters to alter the world in ways by their very will, and by invoking the powers that will and their own power spring from. When he says, "You cannot pass!" he's making it so, his words and his purpose are aligned and it is a spell. The Balrog cannot go this way, it is a truth of the world now, because Gandalf has made it so. And the only thing that could change that is if his will is broken. When the Balrog tries, the bridge breaks, not because it was too heavy, or because the stone was weak, or even that Gandalf himself broke it. But because the *Balrog cannot pass.* For Gandalf has spent much of his power and made it so.
Obviously, different writers have different responses to different words. Phillipa Boyens thinks "shall" creates a temporality where at no time will this thing change. Tolkien seemed to be suggesting that time wasn't even a factor, the Balrog passing there just cannot happen, it's just impossible.
That's one of the reasons magic is used quite infrequently, it's kind of a big deal, and it's also a way of shifting the rules of the world (as opposed to some of the "tricks" Gandalf uses, like hurling fire at wolves and the like).
Yea “can not” is better as a word of command. The universe says you can not pass.
But I like how “shall not” plays out so I give it a pass
Yes, exactly, and it's in the grammar itself, that shall is more of a command than can. Because shall is normally used with the first person, if you say shall when talking about another person, it's because the choice of it comes from you, the speaker, if that makes any sense.
Gandalf says BOTH. He first says “You cannot pass”, and then finishes the moment with, “You shall not pass!”
In the book, he only says "You cannot pass", three times.
Gandalf says both in the movie. He says you cannot pass first then screams you shall not pass when he smashes his staff.
She's so lovely. Thank you, Phillipa, for your fundamental part in making the adaptations work. There are many ways in which you did justice to and even improved upon Tolkien's source material.
Woah, she sounds amazing.
And it goes to show you how much respect they tried to have towards LoTR, walking with book around, discussing the change even of a single word and then the absolute banger if an explanation. Woah.
Great story, thanks for the vid.
Iluvatar is at the core of all of Middle Earth and creation. Changing "Cannot" to "Shall not" completely shifts focus from Iluvatar to Gandalf. Gandalf died fighting the Balrog and thus had no authority over him. It was the Valar and more specifically Iluvatar himself that prevented the Barlog from crossing the bridge. Gandalf was not more powerful than Saruman. Saruman was not strong enough to withstand Sauron in the palantir, so on Gandalfs power alone, the fellowship would have failed. If he had said "You shall not pass" it would have failed him, and in his hubris, he would have died to the Balrog and wandered formless for eternity. By stating "You cannot pass" he made it clear that he served Iluvatar and thus the Balrog was unable to seek the ring any furthur. The Balrog realizing that he faces the might of his creator, instead chose to kill his equal and die in combat. The Balrog was a remnant of the first age and constrained to a dark hole in the ground. He was the twisted form of a maiar created to serve Valinor, and instead had to live his life in a pit. He chose to end his existence in one last spectacular battle with an equal.
So no, there is no "respect" being given here. It is a complete twist in the central narrative. It only shows how a simple minded writer with a pen, paper and some eloquent BS can fool you. Between this smooth brain and the ones at Amazon, all they are doing is the equivalent of watering down liquor to sell at a profit. You should be ashamed for being so easily mislead.
I agree completely and her explanation is completely logical and practical. SHALL just has that feel of a done deal, while can not sound more like a simply claim. And someone even thinking about it and coming up with a sensible reason to change it, I think that's why people don't hold many changes against them, cause in many situations they almost wrote Tolkien-like stuff.
I disagree. "Shall not," implies a personal commitment but the outcome is still indeterminate. "Cannot," removes anyone from having any power over the outcome, it will simply be. That is a better representation of Gandalf and the Balrog's roles and difference in power. The Balrog stood as much chance against Gandalf as the rest of the party did with the Balrog. A fight might ensue for, but the outcome is known.
4:36 I think “You shall not pass.” is a good line. But I remember that I was deeply impressed with the original line in the book: “You cannot pass.”. Because my understanding was (and still is) that Gandalf was not giving a command or invoking something or willing something that shall not happen by force, magic or rule. But in his booming voice he was simply telling the Balrog that he cannot pass, as a matter of factual ability and as a warning. Because he has determined that it will not happen, and he is telling the Balrog that he has the power to make it so. (The affiliations he mentions afford him this power.) - Why does Gandalf warn the Balrog? Because he can still do damage, even if he won’t succeed. (As he did.) So, he is telling him, in the simplest way possible: You cannot pass, leave us, and we will just leave as well. Or you are at great risk yourself. And you will not succeed.
The Balrog is used to think that he will succeed. Because he is a very powerful being. So, Gandalf does not try to invoke something that will stop him, not at this point. But instead to convince him that he cannot succeed. Because that will spare both sides the risks and possible damages involved when Gandalf inevitably stops the Balrog.
I've always found it difficult to state why Tolkien might have preferred "cannot" to "shall not". Certainly "shall not" sounds more formal or even archaic. But I think likening it to a simple statement of fact rather than a threat is perfect.
The same reason we translate Petain’s “On ne passe pas” at Verdun as “They shall not pass.” It is a formal declaration, a legal definition at its core.
I think Gandalf says "you cannot pass" first. And then frodo shouts "Gandalf". Then after balrog takes his whip out and Gandalf does his incantation, then he says "you shall not pass". So he says both, but the latter is what most meme and remember
@@gardenstateknicks You are right, I just rewatched it. That makes the rendering in the movie much more beautiful than I remember it. It invokes all the feelings that I have about “You cannot pass”. And then Gandalf uses “You shall not pass” just before he stops the Balrog. Yes, this works for me.
On the other hand, I still prefer the book’s version, where Gandalf says “You cannot pass” three times. Because Gandalf does not usually announce it when he uses his powers, he just uses them, when the situation calls for it. The only purposes of saying “You shall not pass” would be to boost his resolve, or, I guess, to imbue his magic with more power. But he does not need this at other times. Maybe this situation was so exceptionally distressing for him that he needed to say this. Even more so than during his fight with Saruman. But I doubt this.
Anyhow, I think the film’s version is pretty good as it is, and I enjoy it. Thank you for reminding me of this.
I take it probably has a deeper theological implication as well, as in, the Balrog being evil is incapable of causing an entity of good any meaningful harm. Which is a common sentiment in Catholicism. Which seems like a very Tolkien thing to me.
Well done. This was a really nice treat from both of you. Thank you.
I also remember my mom taking me out of school to see The Two Towers and The Return of the King on opening day. That wonderful woman waited in cold, snowy Minnesota weather to get us tickets. I'll *never* forget my experience watching The Return of the King. To this day I've never been so emotionally invested in a movie before in my life, and that feeling was palpable throughout the entire theater. Thank you Philippa for helping create such an incredible experience.
Next Mother's Day thank her for that, specifically, with a special gift of some kind. Tell her.
This woman knows her craft 👏👏
@JakesTakesTV Late to the party, but thank you for the interview. You presented yourself the way I hope I would if I had a similar opportunity to interview George Lucas or Ridley Scott (which is just an age thing, if I was younger I have no doubt it would have been Peter Jackson or Phillipa): giving genuine, effusive praise, openly sharing the impact Phillipa Boyens had on you, but never coming off as sycophantic.
Wow, incredible interview. Thanks for asking interesting questions and then also giving her space to share all this fascinating information.
Especially about the Civic Theater in Auckland. There are photos online. Everyone here ought to have a look. It's one of the most magical theaters on the planet - no exaggeration. That's what she got to experience STAR WARS in, as a rural kid. That will put a stamp on your soul for the rest of your life, and you might end up being able to convey LOTR to the world with that kind of soulfulness.
No matter what Phillipa does successfully or unsuccessfully the rest of her life, she's immortal for what they did with the original triology. It's just so wonderful and it amazes me how it seems to be even more popular and ubiquitous now than when first released.
When I saw Fellowhoship in the theaters I was just totally blown away. The scene with Gandalf and Frodo "So do all who live to see such times" was profound and done so well and is in such a wonderful moment in the film. There is so much meaning in the film it certainly had an impact on me when we do have moments in our lives where we are struggling and cannot find peace.
This woman is an absolute genius.
I totally agree with her! I must add the scene when Gandalf and Pippin are in Minas Tirith, the "white shores" scene... The way Sir Ian McKellen delivers those lines, his eyes, his breath, facial expression... Absolutely amazing!
Boyen was the brains behind the screen writing. I love hearing this.
Thank you, Philippa, for recognizing Shore’s contributions to the films. ❤
Great interview. The Boyens, Walsh, Jackson audio commentaries were like going to church for film students like me.
I love how committed Ian McKellen was to keeping the movie true to the original text where possible. It's always nice to know an actor treated an iconic role as a labor of love and not just another job.
Great interview! I can feel your excitement talking to one of the most underrated heroes in LOTR! It's always nice to hear Philippa talk about the original LOTR.
If I had a chance to interview her, I would have asked her more about the original 2-film treatment for the Hobbit (what are the things that the studio mandated etc...)
She got the line wrong in the online lotr reunion. Sir Ian McKellen was about to say “you cannot pass” but Phillipa said it was “you will not pass”. You should see McKellen’s reaction 😂, he was like “girl wtf you're saying” 😂
Studio didn't mandate 3 movies, they made the choice themselves because the structure didn't work in two parts and they had too much material. Part 1 was going to end after the barrel chase in Mirkwood, but the goblin tunnels/wargs was a better climax for part 1. Not to mention introducing the elves in part 1 didn't work either.
The book is already naturally divided into 3 separate story arcs, so it was better to follow the book in that sense. Splitting it into 2 movies always perplexed me and I could never guess where the split would be. The moment they announced 3 films I knew exactly where each would start and I was right.
@ i remember they said that the original final frame of Film One was the introduction of Bard (remember that silhouette of Bard when Ori sees him?). I think that would make sense to have the split in there. Then the studio wanted to make it 3 films so they had to add some padding. That killed the rewatchability of the Hobbit films for me.
So much respect for someone who puts so much thought and consideration into just one word. Brilliant.
I could never put my finger on what exactly makes a great screen writer, but listening to her speak... the knowledge, the eloquence... the craft she clearly puts into her work... well, you can see _why_ she is an Oscar winning screen writer.
Ah, memories... I didn't take my ten-yeayear-old out of school, but I did take him, and (the same) 4 of his classmates to each opening night. It became such an instant, and important, tradition that I waited almost too long to make reservations, in order to be sure all the kids could be there. By that time, only one theater in NYC had tickets left. As it turned out that venue was perfect, providing a couple of memories that no place else could have.
This was amazing, thanks for the vid! I got chills when she described her Star Wars experience. I remember going to Star Wars with my brother and mom on opening day. No one was ready for what turned into a new era of movies and it was awesome.
Even as a book nerd, I approved this deviation from the original. Although had they left it, I would imagine Sir Ian would have delivered it as something like, "You can NOT pass!" and it still would have been awesome. Can I also just add that I got a big smile when she talked about Star Wars. I was eight that summer and my dad took me to Star Wars while my mom was working. We loved it so much, we dragged her along with us and saw it again a week or so later. Dad is 85 now and we've gone to EVERY Star Wars movie together. Mom's gone to most of them with us but if she's being honest, she's not as a big on the whole scifi thing as Dad and me.
Jake, you are such a gentleman, a lover of the art of cinema, and a lover of those who artists who create that art. That’s why your interviews are so insightful and draw out such enlightening conversations from your interviewees. Keep up the good work. Blessings to you and yours for the Holiday Season and for 2025 from Scotland!
“You Shall not pass.” Is aggressive is a statement of intent. And “You cannot pass.” Is declarative and more of a statement of fact.
Well she is just lovely! Happy to share a name with her.
“Can not pass” doesn’t need to be shouted because “can not” indicates that there is something in place that absolutely prevents the action, so announcing it assertively is superfluous. “Shall not” on the other hand is demonstrating the possibility that they could, but that they won’t, based on the will of the speaker.
I like the way she describes it as an invocation rather than a spell. It reminds me of the bit at the beginning of Return of the King (extended edition) where they confront Saruman, and Gandalf the White simply says "Saruman, your staff is broken" and Saruman's staff shatters. I love the idea of that, that Gandalf just speaking words creates the reality. Not some hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, but simply a statement of what will happen, and then it happening.
Such a great interview!
I love it when screenwriters get it. When I listened to both in my head, and "You shall not pass!" sounds so much better. I suspect Tolkien would have loved it.
I hear 'Shall Not', as a claim coming from Gandalf's will and personal line in the sand. While I hear 'Can Not', as a claim to what is, what has been, and the reality of how the oldest light of creation, had already set that bound. 'Can Not', is a declaration of fact, whereas 'Shall Not' sounds like a declaration of personal intent. Of course, I have never met with Tolkien, and I am only speaking subjectively. I do respect her perspective in script writing for the big screen…. just a random LOTR fan, with a solid fantasy world established in my mind.
You cannot pass is better. "Shall" is more uncertain, which doesn't fit. Tolkien would have hated the change. Absolutely hated it. Christopher Tolkien thought (correctly) that those movies were trash.
@DanSmith-j8y Your arrogance is adorable.
@@Educated2Extinction What arrogance?
@@DanSmith-j8y Believing that you know better than everyone else.
What a delightful interview!
I could listen to her talk about LOTR all day long….
Great interview.
Great interview!
What a beautiful, articulate, intelligent woman
we need 9 hours of Philippa!
1. Mighty cool channel intro
2. Even cooler interview
nerding out so hard :D thanks for the questions jake! to bad its only that much time
I saw Empire strikes back in that same movie theatre the civic me and my older brother skipped school to watch it.
I just had a look at photos, out of curiosity, and HOLY SMOKES that is easily one of the most magical theaters on the planet.
It's a shame I have to say this, but it's so refreshing to hear intelligent people giving intelligent and insightful answers, instead of the new generation of people who haven't got the slightest clue about how to make good cinema or tv. This radiates respect for the original material and competence to execute it.
Still hot after the latest rounds of Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Rings of Power? It's tough watching such beloved universes shredded to pieces.
As a VFX artist, I've always focused on the imagery, little did I know when I began my career, the quality starts with the script.
@@patrickcoan3139 On top of that, let's put aside whether or not those, you mentioned, were good quality projects, the people involved seem to be the most arrogant, ignorant, obnoxious, full-of-themselves and unpleasant people I've ever seen. It's painful to watch them in interviews, because in the best case they have nothing to say, and worst case, which seems to be the case more often than not, they are aboslutely horrible people.
It's not an age thing. There are plenty of thoughtless, unintelligent, unappreciative people who are old. You just have a prejudice yourself which you don't want to examine.
Ok grandpa let's get you to bed now
@@SuperlunarNim Difference is, they aren't masquerading as intelligent, intentional or talented creatives. They know they don't have anything to offer beyond their opinion. But THIS age of filmmaking, music, even things llike video games, is lacking authenticity. Almost as if corporate profits are propping up helicopr chidlren and trust-fund babie's egos?
The AI filmmaker world will be undeniable.
Lovely lady. The most powerful passage in the books is the 'Far green country under a swift sunrise' which was narration and not spoken by any character. It took my breath away 50 years ago and still does. In the film Gandalf says it to Pippin at Minas Tirith because it has to go somewhere.
I just needed to chime in and say that I was one of those parents. I read the books aloud to my kids and when each movie came out I took them out of school. I even told the school why I was doing it. No pushback. I hope they remember it as fondly as you do. I will ask at Christmas.
What a wonderful, talented lady. I love hearing her explain so much about the passion she has for her work. I'd love to hear a longer interview or just have her host a documentary. Thank you for sharing her story.
What a great short interview! Thanks for posting this.
There are some language things going on here as well. Tolkien is using mainly old-English/Nordic/Germanic vocabulary, and so the bigger problem for him was probably “pass” which is French / Latin in origin, and there is no good short Germanic equivalent. The other thing is, that we are on a language journey from plain storytelling in the beginning, to biblical/epic text at the end of the story. I think it was a little too early in the story for “shall” because, of course, it reminds us of several Bible passages. Also “cannot” is Germanic in origin, so would have suited Tolkien better. But for the film version “shall not” was probably better.
Such an incredible and inspiring woman. Those screenplays are such masterful cinematic adaptations, and choices like these are what make them sing for the screen.
And yet, on a talk show (Graham Norton?) McKellan claimed that it was written "cannot pass" in the script, but that he mis-spoke the line, and it was so good that they kept it that way. That makes a better story, but I suspect this version is more likely to be true.
Perhaps he was misremembering things. Who knows. Memory is a funny thing.
There’s a lot of intensive work in the days of shooting, it’s wouldn’t surprise me if McKellan wouldn’t remember everything correctly.
I love hearing her speak about her precision of language.
"I lived in the countryside, sort of outside of Auckland" -- aww she's a Westie -- "... 'cos we come from West Auckland" -- KNEW IT!
All that beautiful description of the glorious Civic though, and she forgot to mention it getting smashed to pieces in loving detail in King Kong?! Aw now. Putting it on screen like that was fine work, and should be brought up whenever possible.
It truly is spectacular and lovely place to watch films. I got bored silly by Gone With the Wind there for what felt like a month, but none of it mattered 'cos I could always just lean back, ignore whatever nonsense was passing across the screen, and gaze at the clouds and stars up on the ceiling. So lovely.
... and then later on I saw Casablanca there, and didn't even realise until the third act that the sky hadn't even been turned on. A solid way to measure how gripping a film is.
In System/Technical Requirements Specification documents, all requirements are denoted by "so and so SHALL do this" or "so and so SHALL NOT do this". It's strong language that brooks absolutely no opposition.
What a beautiful exploration of the script
Greatly appreciate this small insight into the art and craft of the LOTR adaptation. This brief interview shows how appreciative and understanding Philipa Bowens was and is about language...which would surely have pleased Tolkein.
I have watched many TH-cam reactions to LOTR, and in leaving comments I have done my best to point out that the movies were a collaboration between Philippa, Fran and Peter and deserve equal praise, instead of the reactors' focus typically being principally on Peter Jackson. I also like to point out how WETA's sets,, costume designs and props contribute too.
I read the Hobbit in 1968 when I was 8 (same age as the publisher's son, who recommended the original manuscript to his father for publication) and was particularly captivated by the dwarf lore, so I got a particular thrill from the Dwarrowdelf reveal inn the movie.
I read LOTR when I was 12 ( straight through, with no sleep for 64 hours!) and I could not imagine how it could possibly be adapted for the cinema and do it any kind of justice. In many ways I appreciate the movies as much because of what they left out from the original work, as what they kept, and/or manipulated... without the choices made by Peter, Philippa and Fran, I'm sure the project would have collapsed in mid-production.
It's not 'just' the source material that made these movies so great, it's the care and skill of EVERYONE involved, beginning with the care and skill of this amazing triumvirate of director and writers.
Purely in terms of dialogue, “can not” invites “can’t I?” as a response - “shall not” is decisive and final and puts the onus solely on Gandalf, something he feared and did not want but faced nonetheless - Gandalf deals with a great deal of fear and doubt, more than you expect for a Merlin-type of wizened old sage-like character and it really makes him so relatable - his final utterance of “shall not” is his facing of all that fear - it won’t be the last time he faces it, but this was the final threshold before he took his place as the White Wizard
And in German it still is: "Du kannst nicht vorbei." lol
The difference between "you aren't able to" and "I won't _let_ you." It reflects the action more directly, definitely wouldn't be the same the way it was in the text.
Great questions, loved it.
The scene in the book and the movie fits the lore of magic/supernatural with "cannot" rather than "shall," because the deepest magic is speaking things into reality, e.g. Eru and the spirits speaking or absolutely declaring creation into existence. Thus, it's more appropriate. The former is an absolute declaration, while the latter leaves the possibility of overcoming the magic via a stronger will that's declared by the Balrog. Thus the former is a deeper magic that the Balrog has no will to over-declare or even the possibility of overcoming.
But to an audience the word "shall" invokes the kind of biblical essence that more closely resembles what you're speaking to here. It's an older word to our ears and feels higher. Plus, the "can" follows downstream from the will of the one who creates, who has deemed that the balrog "shall" not pass. It's more emotionally powerful to invoke something like the image of god casting lucifer out of heaven than to simply state fact about what can and cannot happen.
Cannot pass is actually important. It is a command from a wizard, now a threat or warning... It is like a spell, shall is not as commanding as can not! Had not noticed this until now... Her explanation fits better with "cannot" for this reason...
Fortunate that Gandalf says both, then
I think it's completely the opposite. You Cannot pass sounds like there could be a whole list of reasons why the balrog can't pass. It's too ambiguous. The bridge is too weak, balrog is too damn heavy, if you pass we all die, the traffic is too backed up that you can't get through! You shall not pass adds a level of personal commitment from Gandalf. HE is the reason the Balrog will not cross the bridge. It's way more of a threat!
@@optimusakcbut you cannot pass makes is seem more like hes changing reality and no matter what happens he makes it literally impossible for the Balrog to pass
Imagine what their story meetings must have been like! Amazing questions Jake
Eru sang the world into existence with the assistance of the Ainur, because he created them with the authority to do so. The Valar are the greater of the Ainur and the Maiar (those like Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast) were the servants of the Valar. Being Ainur themselves, they also have great authority.
Authority is the basis of the “magic” in Tolkien’s world. The Ainur have authorty to make things so, and so when they say that something is, it just is. When Gandalf says “you cannot pass”, he has the authority to make it so. There is no need for demands, he simply needs to make the statement.
However, “You shall not pass” has 100% become one of the most iconic lines from the movies, so it works. It just misrepresents the “magic” system a little for people who don’t know what it actually is 🤷🏼♂️
When i READ the words i see Gandalf not shouting but just saying it confidently
My Niece was a high school math teacher. I called one of her classes her balrog class, because several students who didn’t ever do their homework would not pass
"You shall not pass" is more verbally romantic than "you can not pass" but interestingly, she mentions "go back to the shadows" when i think "return to the shadows" would have been a little better - though it might have been the cadence of "go back to the shadows" that made it a better fit. Regardless, they took a great book and made it even better, honestly, by improving so much of the dialogue. An absolute masterclass in adaptations.
This explains a lot, if Star Wars is one of her most powerful cinematic memories. I always thought both franchises went hand in hand. Nothing transports me to a different world like those 12-15 hours, in both cases.
Star Wars is dead. George Lucas said, on screen, that Disney SW isn't Star Wars. Only apes thinks it is because of the logo.
@stigkenobi7525 it is now, but the Lucas films are special.
The original trilogy of each are some of the best sacred-mythos in modern existence, but the hobbit trilogy was comparatively quite bad, and the next 6 star wars movies were just trash (especially the final trilogy, which were a defilement). They need to be re-done with the soulfulness of LOTR and ANH+ESB+ROTJ.
"You cannot pass," is about the hearer. "You shall not pass," is about the speaker. It changes the statement from a crossing guard with a stop sign to a duelist with a thrown gauntlet.
"You shall not pass" also has a better cadence to it, four even beats. One. Two. Three. Four. "You cannot pass" has four uneven beats since beats two and three run together. It makes it sound weaker.
What makes it iconic, though, is the defiant, powerful delivery of actor Sir Ian MacKellen.
I love her passion! 🥰
Wow, this is what someone who truly understands language and Tolkien sounds like.
Great content. Subscribed!
The line "You cannot pass" puts the focus the Balrog, as if to say that it's not strong enough to pass. "You SHALL not pass" switches the focus to Gandalf, and his resolve to stand in it's way, at all costs.
Tolkien would have never written "you shall not pass". He would have found it grammatically questionable. The distinction has been lost in contemporary English, so the two are interchangeable now, but in the past, "shall" was the verb from reserved for first person pronouns, "will" was the verb form for everything else. So you would say, "You will not pass," or "I shall not pass", but never "you shall not pass". As an English professor specializing in historic languages, old english and norse and such, this distinction would not have been lost on Tolkien.
Hmm interesting reasoning, but I think "shall" works better than "cannot" for me because "shall" comes across as confident & brave, rather "cannot" as cocky and presumptuous of the Balrog's power.
The Balrog and Gandalf are both Maiar, they are equally matched. Hence Gandalf knew Balrog could not pass!
I always felt that "You cannot pass" has the connotation that 'something' will prevent the Balrog from crossing, whereas "You shall not pass" means Gandalf will never allow the Balrog to cross. It's kind of a small thing, but I think it gives Gandalf greater authority in the moment...and she's right, it sounds better off the page.
"Shall" gives him _less_ authority. It's uncertain. Cannot is certain.
I can understand Ian's trepidation about changing lines or intention from the source. Just look at the ire Michael Gambon (and Mike Newell) faced for changing "'Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire,' Dumbledore asked calmly," in the book; to running in and shaking Harry frantically in the film.
“You *_cannot_* pass” also gives the sense that Balrog doesn’t have the ability to pass, whereas, “You *_shall not_* pass,” is just as Philippa pointed out, but furthermore it also suggests that the reason is not the lack of ability, but is due to Gandalf’s declaration itself.
This is just like "hey look, we did some changes back then as well, so War of the Rohirrim can't be that bad"...
Shall works better because it carries with it the idea of commandments/law and in legal language, compliance is not optional.
The great thing is that Gandalf actually _says_ "You cannot pass.", like he tells the Balrog, "Don't try it, bro. Won't end well for you", before he absolutely denies pass over the bridge by invoking "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
She respects and loves the original material. Never tried to modernize or update it, but did adapt it for a different medium and did it very well in my opinion. Wish more current screens writers had her level of skill and integrity.
They did modernise and update it, in many ways. They changed the whole way the plot was structured, for a start. They gave Arwen and Galadriel much bigger roles, completely changed Aragorn's character motivation, and changed how both Denathor and Faramir acted and behaved, amongst many other things. They did some of this in order to make it practically filmable, but much of it was done to make the film fit with the expectations and preferences of modern audiences. Which was, and still is, a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thing to do.
Having said all of that, I also wish that more modern screenwriters had this much skill. The problem with ROP et al isn't that it has been 'modernised' - the LOTR screenwriters prove that is perfectly possible - the problem is that they are, very simply, badly written.
@@monkeymox2544problem is also their “modernisation” isnt based on what people care about but what they think people should care about
She ignored the Tolkien's criticisms of the Zimmerman script and commited some of the same errors herself. She cheapened the story, and also brought a "by the numbers" approach to the storytelling (e.g. Frodo falling out with Sam on the Endless Stair apparently because at that point they needed some conflict).
You must be joking, right? The WoR was lazy written, boring and dumb fanfic with a nonsense girl boss as the main protagonist.
@@dimitarzlatanov1749 haven’t watched any of WoR. Maybe my assessment is off but i thought the movies were decently done. Yes there were some changes but that is inevitable given the scope of the books and tome limits of film.
It takes a certain skill in writing to be able to identify what sounds better when spoken versus written.
In the terms of my own understanding, I prefer "shall not" over "cannot" because it instils a greater will into Gandalf's words. It's not merely a statement of fact, but a promise of fate. There is no power that the Balrog can call upon that will allow it to pursue the heroes. It is no ordainable by any divine or malignant force. The only way this is going to go is the Balrog plummeting into the darkness.
The amount of agency that comes from this singular substitution of words thus increases both the dramatic and thematic impact of the statement itself because not only is it clear in the very physical nature of the situation that the Balrog is unable to pass, but there is simply no conceivable means (be it by any manner of intervention, divine or otherwise) that the Balrog will be capable of pursuit. It shall try and it shall fail. Gandalf's will is thus strengthened by the nature of the situation and the divine promise that there is simply no future in which the Balrog will claim the Ring or defeat the Fellowship in Morgoth's (it's true master's) name.
In this way, Gandalf's refutation and denial is almost Biblical and more thematically fitting to the scene in the film itself, in spite of the original writing. Were it released with the original dialogue, I think it would not have had nearly the same impact and I really do prefer Boyens' version of the script better.
“Cannot” speaks to capability but “shall not” is invoking a will/choice to prevent something. “Shall not” is much more appropriate for that scene.
Great interview!
And yet Tolkien, a professor of language, preferred 'cannot'. Gandalf is not expressing will, he is making an absolute statement of fact to dissuade the Balrog.
@Anchises , “dissuade the Balrog”…? In the film, the beast advanced (a choice) and Gandalf _chose_ to risk his life.
@@sovereignty14 I don't understand your point. Gandalf is trying to stop the Balrog pursuing them. Saying 'you cannot pass' is a stronger and more definite threat than 'you shall not pass'.
@@Anchises , you need to deeply reconsider the difference between “can” & “shall”; I write contracts for a living and there's a significant difference in the two words. E.G., it's similar to how children often incorrectly ask, “Can I go to the playground?”, versus the proper, “May I go…?” or “Shall we go…?”
@@sovereignty14 It was a proclamation, not suggestion. Cannot is stronger than shall not.
Great questions!
With the way it's performed in the movie 'You shall not pass' works better. To me I do actually prefer the book version though, imagining not a spell but a statement of truth by an agent of the almighty, who knows enough of the world to know that it is not possible for the balrog to pass.
_"You shall not pass!"_ fits the scene better, like Philippa says. Gandalf is invoking the powers of the Valar, and of Illuvatar. It's a battle of primordial powers, not a bunch of mere orcs. The scene thus invokes a spiritual profundity, the real depth of the battle between good and evil.
🙄
To be fair “You cannot pass” seems like its even more powerful like he is literally changing reality and making it impossible for him to pass its not like you will not/shall not pass because whatever reason but because its literally impossible for you to do so
I think both could have been delivered equally well by Sir Ian and been iconic, but I do believe that shall not versus cannot is lyrically better.
That change wasn't a big deal. I'm glad she feels a bit of chagrin about some of their other changes. Certainly, the prince of Ithilian has grounds for a defamation suit. Aragorn pulling a full sword out in the Prancing Pony was inexcusable. As was Arwen heading for the Grey Havens, or Frodo and Sam's quarrel on the stairs into Mordor. These, like many of their changes, didn't improve the plot and showed that they didn't understand the characters very well. Indeed, their grasp of characters was a problem throughout. They altered Aragorn, Theoden, Denethor, Treebeard, and Elrond in negative ways that, if anything, weakened the story.
When you are handed the gift of true excellence to work with, you should have the wisdom to be very careful in what you change. I get that changes need to be made, the subplots with Bombadill, and the scouring of the Shire were reasonable cuts. I even get the Glorfindalization of Arwen. They needed to upgrade her content for commercial purposes.
There were just too many times when they left Middle Earth and headed to "Jacksonville."
she is great!
Another great piece of writing in the movies was when the Lord of the Nazgul says "No man can defeat me," and Eowyn responds with "I am no man. *stabs him in the face*". Way better and considerably more badass than the speechifying in the original text.