One of the things that upset me most about Peter Jackson's version of the Battle of the Five Armies was that both Fili and Kili left Thorin Oakenshield and died apart from him The "real" Fili and Kili died defending their kinsman--their bodies found across his. They loved him, and would never have left him.
That worked well in the book, but would not have worked in a movie. Imagine you set up these two beloved characters and they both die defending a dead body. It's great for a book, but in a movie it just doesn't work as well. They had to make it more dramatic as it is a dramatization after all.
@@millatalonhand9242 The deaths of Fili and Kili could have been utterly dramatic as written in the book because, as it happens, they WEREN'T defending a dead body. Mortally wounded, yes, but not dead. Thorin lives long enough to say a final farewell to Bilbo and repent his harsh words to Bilbo before the Battle of Five Armies.
You know you're a Tolkein nerd when you notice that you have something in your pocket that you don't remember putting and then you ask yourself outloud "what do I have in my pocket?"
I find it interesting that at the end of the cut chapter Sam hears the sound of the sea, like some sort of prophecy. In appendix B it says that after the death of Rose, Sam leaves Bag End & rides to the Tower Hills. He says goodbye to his daughter Elanor and then goes to the Grey Havens from whence he passes over the sea. I like to think of Sam meeting Frodo, Bilbo and other friends again in Valinor.
@@neilf6782 No they go to Aman (ie Valinor) "certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome...I have said nothing about it in this book (The Lord of the Rings), but the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed for ever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world." - JRRT Letter 154 "As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time - whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing." - JRRT Letter 325 Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Galadriel, Elrond et al all sailed West via the Straight Road & went to Aman. Sam sailed later & joined them there (LotR appendix B) and later Gimli sailed with Legolas, Galadriel perhaps having obtained permission for him to go. (LotR appendix B) Edit - After doing some more digging I found a reference in Sauron Defeated where Tolkien says "It is hinted that they come to Eressëa." But I also found another letter to Roger Lancelyn Green (17 July 1971) that says "The immortals who were permitted to leave Middle-earth and seek Aman set sail in ships specially made and hallowed for this voyage, and steered due West... it followed the straight road to the true West and not the bent road of the earth's surface. As it vanished it left the physical world. There was no return. The Elves who took this road and those few 'mortals' who by special grace went with them, had abandoned the 'History of the world' and could play no further part in it." So perhaps where was a idea that they go to Eressëa but it was abandoned in favour of Aman. I can find only the one reference to Eressëa but quite a few about Aman. So if you have any more I would interested to read it.
wow, thanks for getting back to me with such a well researched and in depth reply. The lonely isle is part of aman as far as I understand. The idea I got was in reference to what the emissary's from the west told the numenorean's during the 2nd age when warning them to cease their craving of the blessed realm. Here is the quote. For it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.’ So technically yes they would still go to Aman as the lonely isle is part of but apart from the light through the calacirya the pelori would shield them from getting a full roasting of immortal bliss light so to speak lol
I'm literally crying. I put off reading this chapter for such a long time, because I wanted to read it in original, but I wasn't sure if my English was good enough, and now I've listened to it and I understood it all! Such a poignant feeling. It just fills my heart. This is really what it is all about. My never-ending love...
@Anna_G What is your first language ? I think LOTR as an audiobook or reading or BOTH would be entertaining & educational !! Tolkien is one of those authors who makes English beautiful: he used a LOT of alliteration & the syllables he drops make captivating percussive patterns. My Dad read the Hobbit to me when I was very small: before kindergarten, even. I’d sit on his lap as he read aloud to me and I’d ask him to NOT stop to explain vocabulary, because that messed up the mesmerizing flow. My second language is Portuguese, it’s only now after years of studying (but not studying intensely: I’ve allowed it to be low-pressure, zero stress) it’s only now that I can listen to podcasts and audiobooks and just allow my vocabulary gaps to sit as “temporary unknowns” if a word doesn’t reveal its meaning through context… Anyway, you’ve chosen high-quality work as your exemplar or reading material. Good on ya’ !!
@@miahconnell23hi! What a sweet memories you have! I've already listened to LOTR as an audiobook and read my favourite pieces in original. And I totally understand you, audiobook is easier for me because it keeps the pace and lets me get the meaning of the unknown words from the context. When I read, I cannot resist the urge to open the dictionary every time I don't understand something clearly, so it ruins the atmosphere and takes really long to read even a chapter :D I agree, Tolkien has a wonderful style! My first language is Russian.
I am a massive Tolkien nerd, every year I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and yet I knew nothing about this last chapter. Listening to you read it out loud was truly a spectacle. I could see it: the Shire, Sam, the children, the night sky and Rose, when I heard that last sentence about the waves splashing and crashing on the lands of Middle-Earth, I knew right away that it was definitely referring to Sam's recollection of the day Frodo left from the Grey Heavens. Beautiful. After all these years since his death, since the publishing of his books, Tolkien is still able to surprise us and show us some plenty more of his Middle-Earth.
@@caiofo1 #NerdoftheRings does great explanations from the books and movies, and books vs movies. There are a large number of appendices and letters from Tolkien explaining the lore or offering clarification. Book of the lost tales, Unfinished tales also offer clues.
@@Eowyn3Pride of corse! It was a sooo good vídeo. So… can I find these informations on the HoME and Unfinished Tales(1,2)?! Nice! Thank you! Tolkien is very deared here, in Brasil!
@@DrXarul You are of course completely correct. To me, however, the ability of the newly "masterful" hobbits of the fellowship to organize the hobbitry in arms, to drive "Sharkey"/Saruman/Cùrunir's men out of the Shire, and then take over as Mayor, Master of the Hall, and the Took was the whole point of the book. That's why I think the Scouring's absence the more grievous deletion.
@@ramonmachtesh3035 Greetings friend The Scouring of the Shire also had a great impact on me when I first read Lord of the Rings back in 1971. That is one of the best things about great literature, so many different impressions for so many different readers. Elen sila lumenn omentielvo, as JRR said. Happy reading to you
And the real Tolkien nerds know that Tolkien specifically wrote the entire Lord of the Rings so that the date of the Fall of the DArk Lord would arrive on March 25th--which every Catholic knows is the date of the Feast of the Annunciation (exactly 9 months before the Feast of the Nativity) and which medievalists like Tolkien knew was traditionally the exact date of the Crucifixtion. March 25th, the date Tolkien chose to be the "beginning of the Age of Men." The date of the Incarnation. Pretty cool.
March 25 is a national celebration in Greece. The day in which we declared the Revolution against the Ottomans. And also a religious date in Orthodoxy too.
"Specifically wrote the entire LotR..." for that? Nah; as he wrote, this occurred consciously in the rewriting. Not an afterthought, but not central to the work either.
The movies totally capture the feeling of Friendship , a perfect home, Shire , rivendell etc ..etc .. Peter Jackson did understood what Tolkien was going for ...if you watch the special features of the extended cuts ...you will know how much vision and passion and hard work he put so that the movies could Capture these aspects..when I think about the movies i Don't remember the war or fights , I remember Bilbo and frodo in the Shire, the spectacle of lothlorien and rivendell and most importantly the friendship among the fellowship especially Sam and frodo...
I think you missed the point of the films. While there is action and adventure and clash of battle the themes of home and friendship and resound soundly throughout. When Sam is carrying Frodo up to Mt. Doom. Sacrifice when Faramir goes out to retake Osgiliath when he knows it is almost certain death. When Aragorn leads the charge at the Black Gate that too is shown sacrifice. If the films were only as you say then they would have been a failure, but they are not what you say. Films tell a story in a different way and some things have to change. But no the films are not devoid of these things.
No, they're not devoid of them, nor did Glyer say they were. But her point is exactly right, that the EMPHASIS was profoundly altered. Christopher Tolkien agreed: "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."
Celeste, as an avid Tolkien scholar, I agree. The films were a different take, but in some ways, many ways I would argue, an improvement, no matter what anyone says. In them, is demonstrated hope, there is love, there is fellowship, there is friendship, there are wounds that never heal, courage beyond measure, and bonds that cannot ever be broken. The Scourging of the Shire was overkill, and Tom Bombadil is over-rated, and so ancillary, but for the barrow downs, and the blades of old, and Merry taking place in the defeat of the Witch King, but even so, it worked our fine without that in the films. The Hobbit was my first full length novel in 2nd grade, and I was 13 when The Return of the King came out in theaters, and I cried my eyes out. I still do. Every time, without fail. Peter Jackson and the crew nailed the Spirit of the story, without question. However, this was still an interesting clip to watch, and I appreciate her insight, though I massively disagree. The films captured the heart and soul of the characters, and while yes, there are some changes, but that doesn't change the underlying message. If anything, it improved upon it. In the books, this doesn't happen, but in the films, Frodo falls over the edge, and Samwise catches his bloody hand. "Don't you let go! ... Reach!" Now tell me that's not an improvement.
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson Not to be rude, but everything you said is just schmaltz that is common in action movies and a lot of sentimentality. Of course you think the movies are perfect because you saw them as a kid. There's no point in nitpicking all the things Jackson outright butchered needlessly for that reason, and because it'd take forever. They're fine adaptations, but still adaptations. If you really dislike the source that much, then maybe it and its themes just aren't for you. And that's fine.
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson The Scouring of the Shire was never overkill. Leaving it out gave the films a very "American" end of war... you come back and everything (but you) is exactly the same. With the Scouring of the Shire we have a very British end of war where everything has been touched by the conflict. It also shows just how much all four of the returning hobbits have changed.
That had me sobbing ! Such a wonderful delivery of the master’s words, and a clear exposition of what I believe Tolkien was trying to make alive and real in his books. Greatness is found in the small, in the familiar, and in relationships between us all- living or dead, real or imagined, good or bad. Even more poignant given I’m watching on 22/3 -nearly the date mentioned in the story. And the weather is looking to be clear and beautiful for then too. Thank you so much Dr Glyer 😊🙏
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson so perceptive to observe Luthien was a badass. I know of a sorceress-like Nordic-compass-adorned string player/film composer, named for Luthien, who has written badass pieces.
I think Mr. Jackson gets too much heat considering the Hobbit wasnt his fault. He was brought in extremely late to save the project from the garbage fire Guillermo Del Toro had created. Peter Jackson actually saved The Hobbit from being even more massacred. But by the time he was brought in, there was no more time or budget. So he had to rely on CGI more than he wanted.
He also did everything he could to keep it in New Zealand where as if another director was brought on they were thinking of moving production out of the country thus costing the country a lot of jobs and money. Peter was in an impossible position and given how things went down he really did an admirable job.
Peter Jackson did well with the story. There are things in the book that aren't mentioned, but there are moments in the movies, that did better than the books. Facts are stubborn things. The genealogy within the novels is one of my favorite things, however, Pete nailed that last line in the story, and it was profoundly well done in the films. - "Well... I'm back." He said. And besides, as the meme goes, "Dad, I started reading the Lord of the Rings." - Faramir "Boromir would have read The Silmarillion..." - Denethor.
The thing I hate most about the Jackson movies (and I hate a lot about the Jackson movies) is how he left out the Scouring of the Shire. Because Tolkien wrote a lot of his experiences of both WWI and WWII in this book. Think what happened after WWII in Britain; the rationing still continued, and while the war was won by Britain and the Allies, it was Germany that was rebuilt, while Britain was totally bankrupt, bombed out and forced to be frugal and austere. And then, of course, communism had started to rear its ugly head again; while British best and brightest were killed on the battlefield, far away from home, seditious elements settled in Academia and elsewhere, preaching about 'gathering and distributing', like the Ruffians they were. The whole idea that Evil is everywhere, and that Small Evil at home can do as much damage and Great Evil abroad, is very Tolkien.
Communism has never reared any head at all. Stop mistaking the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marx warned would happen, for communism. Tolkien would have been aghast at your lack of comprehension skills and willingness to pervert words and their meanings to serve your own biases.
Tolkien spent his first 10 years in rural South Africa. Basically griwing up in the Shire. Then his mother brought them home to England. About age 12 they converted to Catholicism. And as a Catholic Middle Earth has a very Catholic worldview. Much of the rest is influenced by his service in WW I.
Tom Bombadil was only in the book of LOTR becaus tolkien's children loved the character. He is a strange character with no significance to the larger story. It would have made the movie longer and people would have had to many questions. As readers to this day still have so many questions about his character.
I have often wished that, in the mid '60s when the publishers were asking if he had something new, someone had thought of the 'epilogue' chapter and encouraged JRRT to update it to include answers to questions that readers had asked ('Was Smaug the last dragon, Father?') and probably bring the Sindarin passage up to whatever state the language was in. With some Pauline Baynes pictures, it could have made a lovely little volume comparable to Smith of Wootton Major, which is what was published.
Lotr doesnt end with this chapter. You can go further to Aragorns death in his 210 years, building a city by Gimli in caverns of Helms Deep, he even get an invitation to Valinor as a first of naugrim, Sam became a mayor and in his 102 years he sailed to Valinor also etc, etc...
good point! I guess I would say that the stories of Middle-earth do not end with this chapter, but The Lord of the Rings (as Tolkien intended it) does.
@@dianaglyer8486 Would be good to see or reference the source. I am surprised JRRT does not mention this desire in his letters. I lost my 80s letters book and it may have been in their its not in my 90s version. I have always lost things begging to loose facts, which is disturbing because that was my strength.
Lol yeah I was waiting for something scholarly or not obvious that supposedly takes a “Tolkien nerd” to know about. But whatever I’m glad she likes Tolkien even if I didn’t hear anything new or thought provoking
I have thought since my first reading of LOTR that Sam was the principle character, the modest companion whose fortitude was no less important than the heroic elves and dwarves and half-elven, the one without whom Frodo could not have parted with The Ring, the one mortal Ring-Bearer who considered how he could use it, who had it in his grasp and turned away from its temptation.
I read The Hobbit in 6th grade after seeing the Rankin-Bass cartoon on television. I was fascinated. A friend saw me reading it (for the 4th or 5th time) on the bus, and told me, "you know he wrote 3 more books, right?" I begged my parents for these other books, and recieved paperbacks from the bookstore. I devoured them, and read the trilogy every year until my 3rd child was born, and I was just too busy. I've seen all the movies, of course, but I still prefer to read the books whenever I can.
With all this knowledge of both the Hobbit and LOTR: You owe it to yourself to read the Silmarillion, if you haven't done so already. It will enhance LOTR's depth and beauty, and shows all the implications and melancholy with a new and profound light. The Silmarillion gathers a lot of the background story that Tolkien started writing decades before the Hobbit and lotr, and continued to work on until his death. The first chapters are difficult but important (the tone and style changes a lot in the first few chapters, and then become more similar to lot, albeit often on a much grander scale). Do not worry too much about the many many names exposed, it is easy to feel overwhelmed or to forget most of them: just continue reading and the important ones will be focused on. It contains some of Tolkien's very best work.
‘But,’ said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, ‘I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.’ ‘So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. But you are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you. And also you have Rose, and Elanor; and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin; and perhaps more that I cannot see. Your hands and your wits will be needed everywhere. You will be the Mayor, of course, as long as you want to be, and the most famous gardener in history; and you will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger and so love their beloved land all the more."
jackson was forced to make it by the studio after the initial director quit. he had extremely limited prep time, was forced to make 3 films when the story could easily be covered in 1-2. most of the changes were either because of the rushed time-frame or the requirements of the studio, so stop blaming him for doing what he could with what he was given
I don’t know why people are hating on Peter Jackson. He poured his heart and soul into making the film. And was very familiar with the source material. You have to understand he was making a movie. There’s only so much one can fit into 3 hours. And he had a budget and time frame as well.
I think the Hobbit trilogy less so than the LoTR trilogy, but it does genuinely have it's moments as well. I think for instance all the scenes where Bilbo is in the Shire, there and back again, are pretty wonderful. I also think the Lord of the Rings trilogy is possibly as faithful as they could have been to the books whilst still being great box office successes that reached and inspired millions. I don't believe a 1:1 retelling of Tolkien's work in film would have been successful, and would have been an interesting indie film at most.
@@dianaglyer8486 Agreed. I feel the films focus more on the spectacle of the War of the Ring whilst Tolkien is more focused on the individual characters and how the events affect them on a personal level. The films faithfully maintain the themes of the books, such as the importance of home, what people love and fight for and represent the world and cultures of Middle Earth extraordinarily well, but they push Tolkien's primary focus into ones that the films merely footnote. We never really hear the character's thoughts and see/feel the events from their perspectives.
In general, I very much like Peter Jackson's movies, though I'm always annoyed by unnecessary plot changes. The biggest things that bothered me were both in the theatrical release of "The Two Towers": a hasty Treebeard and a Faramir with less than ironclad integrity. The long version works much better on both points, though I'm still bothered by the lengthy dwelling on a temptation that according to the book never happened ("Not if I found it on the side of the road..."). Casting Azog as the villain in "The Hobbit" (dead according to Tolkien's chronology) instead of his son Bolg (who commanded the Goblin army in the battle) was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the story. On the other hand, I very much appreciate the role given to Radagast, to whom I have long thought Tolkien gave short shrift. It would have made perfect sense to have the Valar send a friend of birds and beasts along with Saruman and Gandalf; they needed as much protection from Sauron as the people did (if not more). In such a conception, Radagast did not shirk his mission, but fulfilled it. Howard Shore's scores are fabulous and are worth listening to over and over again.
My biggest objection was what Jackson did to Denethor - a great, strong and noble man destroyed by despair - one of the great tragic characters of literature. Jackson turns him into a cardboard cut-out that the audience are invited to hate and despise. His death is tragic and pitiful, but when I saw the movie the audience cheered at his (Hollywood-ised) death.
I actually prefer Faramir in the movies. I think it makes him a more admirable character that he was tempted by the Ring and his own desire for his father's affection and stood fast anyone, rather than just being such a perfect paragon of virtue that the temptation never even entered his mind. It makes him feel more human and more inspirational. I absolutely agree with Steven about Denethor though. Denethor is by far my favorite character in the books. He's so nuanced and tragic, a truly great man done in by the times he was born into, but without whom Gondor likely would have fallen long before Aragorn bothered to show up and do his job. I get why they wrote him the way they did, since in the grand scheme of things his nobility is significantly less important than his fall to madness as far as the plot is concerned, but it's just such a waste that one of Tolkien's few truly morally complex characters gets turned into a caricature.
Cinema wins does a great job of explaining the reason this stuff is missing in the movies. The book allows for more detail and a much longer spread out grand epic where as due to the limitations of film, that wouldn’t be possible so instead he goes for a more urgent sense of impending doom. As if it’s make or break time which he does an amazing job at.
Yeah, the same Cinema Wins guy who defended The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. Also Jackson and his team could have made six lotr films. And, if they did this, they would not have destroyed New Zealand's industry and rewritten their culture with the help of the other Modern Libertarians and the Communists if they had filmed in North-western Europe. They would also not have made any of the movies into actions versions (them making a b-rated horror action trilogy is a huge disgrace to Tolkien and anybody else who fought in World-War 1, or war in general). It is because all of the soldiers have ptsd from fighting in them. This is while Jackson makes all of his good lotr characters into Marxists. This is also a huge disservice to the author because he (maybe) liked the machine, but repeatedly warned us about how we could lose sight of nature, our families, and God in general. He was also Pro-life and was a Devout-Roman Catholic. It is most of the Modern Conservative's faults because they do not understand why Hollywood is so powerful right now, and, yet, they are too cowardly to call out Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, and other powerful people. Tolkienyou arethatJackson'sunderstandPanthercelebratedtalked about
@Joseph Hebert - You're probably right. Sam's just the working class batman (not Batman) to Frodo's upper middle class officer; he cares for Frodo just as Bunter cares for Wimsey after he gets buried on the front.
What about Gollum? He gets Frodo and Sam through Mordor - he destroys the Ring of Power when Frodo's mind has finally been overcome by it. And like so many heroes in the medieval literature that Tolkien taught, although he achieves the victory, he dies a tragic death. Let's give poor doomed Smeagol his due!
The thing that most clearly shows that Jackson does not understand the LotR is precisely what Dr Glyer points out: that the core of the story is hearth and home. Which is why his greatest mistake in Jackson's movies is the omission of The Scouring of the Shire. When the four hobbits return home and find their homeland occupied by Saruman and his ruffians. Peter Kreeft expressed it very well in his lecture on ”Ten insights on Evil in the Lord of the Rings”. The great war begins and ends in your house. It is not an adventure far away. It is here.
I enjoy the books and movies separately, I don't need to see an exact copy or "balanced" version as a movie... I have the books to enjoy the original stories. The movies are just some fun and quick indulgence... maybe the movies will lead a few new fans to read the original stories and discover all new adventures, songs and love. Tom will wait for them.
Another difference of J.R.R. Tolkien and P. Jackson: Jackson could not make a holywood film without including any of the main characteristics of a holywood film, for instance friends' treason and lack of confidence (for example when Frodo thought Sam betrayed him, also when Faramir wouldn't let Frodo go) or excessive amounts of blood and agony. There must also be a reason on why he replaced Glorfindel with Arwen in the first film, while Arwen was not a fighter. Tolkien, in my opinion, purposefully avoided such consepts (for instance friends were real, which appears in the Song of Felagund in the Lay of Leithian, he avoided disgusting battle scenes et cetera). This is the part of the Lay of Leithian I mentioned: "Then sudden Felagund there swaying Sang in answer a song of staying, Resisting, battling against power, Of secrets kept, strength like a tower, And trust unbroken, freedom, escape; Of changing and of shifting shape, Of snares eluded, broken traps, The prison opening, the chain that snaps."
Ξενοφώντας Σούλης Tbh that part of the Lay of Leithian that tells of the battle between Finrod and Sauron is one of my favourite parts, is so beautifully written and such an intense powerful moment. And so different to fantasy books written these days, who else would make their fight a battle in song?
@ClandestineOstrich But both Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel were a connection to the Silmarillion, a deeper work of Tolkien and of they are removed, the whole work becomes Mode superficial.
I grew up several miles away from Azusa Pacific University. I once tried to get a job there, but I think that I was too Catholic for its taste (just like J.R.R. Tolkien). 1:31 I have a dog actually named Precious after Gollum’s pet name for the One Ring… 1:43 I have a similarly themed map, and it has penciled corrections and additions. If I ever get a large enough LOTR map, I’m certain that I’ll pepper it with corrective sticky notes. 1:52 I’ve actually done that with various other objects.
Because translating a book into a movie is very tricky. But you have to give it to jackson because the adaptation is still gorgeous. It wont be a sweep at the oscars if it missed stuff. I think it’s unfair to judge a film using the same boxes to tick when criticizing a book. You can nitpick everything to prove youre an expert of something but that wont change that the books are majestic and the films are also gorgeous on their own.
I totally agree with you: a book and a film are different mediums and should be judged by different criteria. The film is gorgeous, and what Jackson accomplished is amazing. My point is that Tolkien and Jackson are exploring different themes.
A lovely passage - and very well-read! - but I'm rather glad Tolkien held back and published as-is. I think his decision was the right one. Still, lovely to hear the artefact. For the record: while acknowledging the flaws in Jackson's films, I also still love them. They are, I think, as close as we are likely to get to Middle Earth. At least, LOTR. The Hobbit films were... not good.
If it helps , you can consider the movies as the cliff notes , the extended movies as the 1st edition , the books as the directors cut , silmarillion as the script for a prequel and children of hurin , fall of gondolin , beren & luthien , unfinished tales as spin-offs. Or not. Then just keep squabbling.
@@dianaglyer8486 : Being an admirer of Tolkiens universe since mid70’s(born 1965) , Ive also had my sons help me to enable computer games on my Amiga 500 and PC in that universe since the mid 90’s to further allow me to participate in the imaginary world I love. Also , in the 80’s , me and classmates played both Roleplaying games(pen-paper-dice) and boardgames based on Tolkiens work. I love it all.
I dare you to watch the lord of the rings special features through and through and to look me in the face and tell me that Peter Jackson doesn't understand Lord of the Rings. I really despise this sanctimonious gatekeeping going on through the guise of sentimental intellectualism.
Okay, maybe he understood it - if so he chose to alter its foundational concepts, even if he kept most of the story beats the same. Call it "sanctimonious gatekeeping" if you want; I think Glyer's points are perfectly valid, and I still consider Jackson's films to be disappointing bastardizations of a wonderful work of art.
Massive points for not only entering the comment section of TH-cam on your own video (a brave thing to do), but answering a question helpfully and succinctly. I applaud you!
No-no-no-no, you name Luthien something beautiful, strong, lovable and angelic, one who would justify having that name and being named after her. Tolkien didn't like cats.
I seriously considered naming my dog Haun (awesome name!). But I think hound breeds should get first dibs: Haun: hound of Aman. Carcharoth, wolf of Angband, the red maw, would be a cool name as well. I ended up naming my dog Scratch.
I read somewhere that Tolkien himself admitted that one of the mistakes of LOTR is that there are too few women in it. So the filmmakers did a correction in this matter, also with the creation of Tauriel.
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Well worth reading!
Rivendell is not the Shire. Rivendell is out there, out there in the world. Tolkien wanted us to know that those beautiful things, that place where you get your cares mended, where there is song and friends and feasting and all kinds of wonderful things, that that is what you will find out there in the world! You might find danger and bad things, but you will find someplace like Rivendell! Tolkien wanted us to know that places like Rivendell, that is what you will find out in the world! And if you go looking for something like Rivendell, you will find it! You might find danger and bad things, but you will find something like Rivendell! If you look hard enough for it! You will find friends you have not met yet, you will find forest glens in the Sierras or the Alps! You will find beautiful sacred places. You will find Buddhist temples in Japan and gurus in the Himalayas! You will find the beautiful National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., a beautiful magic place like Notre Dame de Paris, right here in the United States! You will find the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade! You will find beauty and wonder and good friends- if you look for it! Even if today in the current age of the world they may be buried and you have to look for them! You will find your own Rivendell! It's out there!
My wife couldn't understand why I wanted to name my Shih-poo Huan the Hound. I tried to explain but she's not a Tolkien Nerd so maybe the next dog will get that name.
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Well worth reading!
Every Tolkien geek thinks they know what he was REALLY talking about. But it's not what he was talking about - it's what you're THINKING about. Don't make the mistake of forcing your view onto the author, especially an author whose oeuvre was so personal and who so thoroughly disliked having his writing misinterpreted. It's YOUR idea, not his. And Peter Jackson has just as much right as you to interpret Tolkien the way he wanted to do so, the way HE saw the Professor's writing. The only difference is he had $300M dollars to do it, so more people know his ideas than yours. But that doesn't make you right and him wrong, any more than it makes him right and you wrong. Speak for yourself and stop trying to speak for Tolkien. He would NOT appreciate it.
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Wonderful stuff.
Thanks so much for sharing this. What a lovely ending chapter. I always felt it was too short. The Hobbit movies are an abomination unto Tolkien. There is more than enough material of Middle Earth to "pad" it into a trilogy, but they had to invent things that go down like a rat sandwich. I didn't enjoy the first one, I nearly walked out of the second one, haven't thought of watching the third. They should be stricken from the record. I still can't forgive what PJ did to Faramir, as well....I could go on...
Recently I pulled out Fellowship to read about Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, the happiest couple in the trilogy. A couple chapters late I endured the Weathertop telling and the name I have seen hijacked by a sullen pouty-lipped badass sorceress who surrounds herself with bowed instruments and GoT banners. Once I had enjoyed the sunny yellow Lothlorien and the bleakness closed again, I finished the volume and puit it aside, to pick up the Tolkien Reader.
Tolkien was talking the story to his children. It is the job of the writer to describe, in detail, with the luxury of time that a visual 120 minute film does not have. At the end of the first and third, the love of home is front and center. Did you watch the backstory? Why don't you make a Hobbit movie? Write the screenplay. Good Luck.
Legolas does not belong in The Hobbit. Neither was Radagast. Peter Jackson made 3 movies out of trilogy--great! So why did he have to mess everything up and make The Hobbit into 2 movies????? Arrrggghhhhhh
easy, the studio had decided it wanted 3 and then the original director quit. Jackson was brought on to fix it but wasn't given any time to prep and organize (something like 2 months prep compared to the 3 years to plan for LOTR) so was basiclly winging it with no prep in order to keep up with the studios timeline
I'm fan, but not a child no more. You have to make an entertaining Movie, or you would have chunks of voice over. Or spend 20mins while the camera pans around a house.
March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation commemorates the appearance of the Angel Gabriel before the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was on that day that Jesus Christ, our Lord and loving Redeemer, the source and reason for our highest hope, took flesh in our Blessed Mother's womb. The real 'secret' about Tolkien is that he was a faithful Catholic who wrote Catholic fiction, that while loved by many, can only be fully appreciated by faithful Catholics.
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AQ4RIghEvUs/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a nerd for sure. A spawn of Ungoliant was under my desk today.
Surprised this deosn't have many likes... not very many Tolkien nerds out there
I'm glad you said Ungoliant. In this video, she said "spawn of Shelob," which really isn't accurate.
Same
I was triggered when she said "Shelob"
Jonathan Young I understood that reference
One of the things that upset me most about Peter Jackson's version of the Battle of the Five Armies was that both Fili and Kili left Thorin Oakenshield and died apart from him The "real" Fili and Kili died defending their kinsman--their bodies found across his. They loved him, and would never have left him.
That worked well in the book, but would not have worked in a movie. Imagine you set up these two beloved characters and they both die defending a dead body. It's great for a book, but in a movie it just doesn't work as well. They had to make it more dramatic as it is a dramatization after all.
@@millatalonhand9242 The deaths of Fili and Kili could have been utterly dramatic as written in the book because, as it happens, they WEREN'T defending a dead body. Mortally wounded, yes, but not dead. Thorin lives long enough to say a final farewell to Bilbo and repent his harsh words to Bilbo before the Battle of Five Armies.
It would have been a good and sad scene - but it is not one of the Hollywood standard tropes
terrible movies. Same with the LOTR.....
@@millatalonhand9242 how do you know
You know you're a Tolkein nerd when you notice that you have something in your pocket that you don't remember putting and then you ask yourself outloud "what do I have in my pocket?"
What do I have in my Pocketses! You mean.
What do I have in my dirty little pocketses?
I find it interesting that at the end of the cut chapter Sam hears the sound of the sea, like some sort of prophecy. In appendix B it says that after the death of Rose, Sam leaves Bag End & rides to the Tower Hills. He says goodbye to his daughter Elanor and then goes to the Grey Havens from whence he passes over the sea. I like to think of Sam meeting Frodo, Bilbo and other friends again in Valinor.
They don't go to Valinor, though.
@@bungobox7454 Yes they do. See here, the section called 'After the First Age' - lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Valinor
@@SGABlencathra they go tol eressëa...
@@neilf6782 No they go to Aman (ie Valinor)
"certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome...I have said nothing about it in this book (The Lord of the Rings), but the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed for ever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world."
- JRRT Letter 154
"As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time - whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing."
- JRRT Letter 325
Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Galadriel, Elrond et al all sailed West via the Straight Road & went to Aman. Sam sailed later & joined them there (LotR appendix B) and later Gimli sailed with Legolas, Galadriel perhaps having obtained permission for him to go. (LotR appendix B)
Edit - After doing some more digging I found a reference in Sauron Defeated where Tolkien says "It is hinted that they come to Eressëa." But I also found another letter to Roger Lancelyn Green (17 July 1971) that says "The immortals who were permitted to leave Middle-earth and seek Aman set sail in ships specially made and hallowed for this voyage, and steered due West... it followed the straight road to the true West and not the bent road of the earth's surface. As it vanished it left the physical world. There was no return. The Elves who took this road and those few 'mortals' who by special grace went with them, had abandoned the 'History of the world' and could play no further part in it."
So perhaps where was a idea that they go to Eressëa but it was abandoned in favour of Aman. I can find only the one reference to Eressëa but quite a few about Aman. So if you have any more I would interested to read it.
wow, thanks for getting back to me with such a well researched and in depth reply. The lonely isle is part of aman as far as I understand. The idea I got was in reference to what the emissary's from the west told the numenorean's during the 2nd age when warning them to cease their craving of the blessed realm. Here is the quote.
For it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.’
So technically yes they would still go to Aman as the lonely isle is part of but apart from the light through the calacirya the pelori would shield them from getting a full roasting of immortal bliss light so to speak lol
I'm literally crying. I put off reading this chapter for such a long time, because I wanted to read it in original, but I wasn't sure if my English was good enough, and now I've listened to it and I understood it all! Such a poignant feeling. It just fills my heart. This is really what it is all about. My never-ending love...
@Anna_G What is your first language ? I think LOTR as an audiobook or reading or BOTH would be entertaining & educational !! Tolkien is one of those authors who makes English beautiful: he used a LOT of alliteration & the syllables he drops make captivating percussive patterns. My Dad read the Hobbit to me when I was very small: before kindergarten, even. I’d sit on his lap as he read aloud to me and I’d ask him to NOT stop to explain vocabulary, because that messed up the mesmerizing flow. My second language is Portuguese, it’s only now after years of studying (but not studying intensely: I’ve allowed it to be low-pressure, zero stress) it’s only now that I can listen to podcasts and audiobooks and just allow my vocabulary gaps to sit as “temporary unknowns” if a word doesn’t reveal its meaning through context… Anyway, you’ve chosen high-quality work as your exemplar or reading material. Good on ya’ !!
@@miahconnell23hi! What a sweet memories you have! I've already listened to LOTR as an audiobook and read my favourite pieces in original. And I totally understand you, audiobook is easier for me because it keeps the pace and lets me get the meaning of the unknown words from the context. When I read, I cannot resist the urge to open the dictionary every time I don't understand something clearly, so it ruins the atmosphere and takes really long to read even a chapter :D I agree, Tolkien has a wonderful style! My first language is Russian.
A Tolkien nerd is someone who refers to Tolkien in the present tense. Tolkien, as well as Frodo, lives.
I am a massive Tolkien nerd, every year I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and yet I knew nothing about this last chapter. Listening to you read it out loud was truly a spectacle. I could see it: the Shire, Sam, the children, the night sky and Rose, when I heard that last sentence about the waves splashing and crashing on the lands of Middle-Earth, I knew right away that it was definitely referring to Sam's recollection of the day Frodo left from the Grey Heavens. Beautiful. After all these years since his death, since the publishing of his books, Tolkien is still able to surprise us and show us some plenty more of his Middle-Earth.
Somehow part of this was incorporated into one of the Video games. It starts with Sam and the kids and the Party tree...
Where we find this part of the history? Was posted?
@@caiofo1 #NerdoftheRings does great explanations from the books and movies, and books vs movies. There are a large number of appendices and letters from Tolkien explaining the lore or offering clarification. Book of the lost tales, Unfinished tales also offer clues.
@@Eowyn3Pride of corse! It was a sooo good vídeo.
So… can I find these informations on the HoME and Unfinished Tales(1,2)?! Nice!
Thank you!
Tolkien is very deared here, in Brasil!
@@Eowyn3Pride please, whats the name of the vídeo that tell about it in Nerd of the Rings? Do u remember?
I don't mind that PJ left out Bombadil anywhere near as much as I do that he cut the scouring of the Shire.
Without Bombadil there were no weapons of Westernesse. Without those weapons the Lord of the Ringwraiths was not destroyed.
@@DrXarul You are of course completely correct. To me, however, the ability of the newly "masterful" hobbits of the fellowship to organize the hobbitry in arms, to drive "Sharkey"/Saruman/Cùrunir's men out of the Shire, and then take over as Mayor, Master of the Hall, and the Took was the whole point of the book. That's why I think the Scouring's absence the more grievous deletion.
@@ramonmachtesh3035 Greetings friend
The Scouring of the Shire also had a great impact on me when I first read Lord of the Rings back in 1971. That is one of the best things about great literature, so many different impressions for so many different readers.
Elen sila lumenn omentielvo, as JRR said.
Happy reading to you
@@DrXarul O menel aglar elennath! Mae govannon, mellon nin!
Agreed...that whole Sauruman impailing bit gets me everytime!🤯
And the real Tolkien nerds know that Tolkien specifically wrote the entire Lord of the Rings so that the date of the Fall of the DArk Lord would arrive on March 25th--which every Catholic knows is the date of the Feast of the Annunciation (exactly 9 months before the Feast of the Nativity) and which medievalists like Tolkien knew was traditionally the exact date of the Crucifixtion. March 25th, the date Tolkien chose to be the "beginning of the Age of Men." The date of the Incarnation. Pretty cool.
March 25 is a national celebration in Greece. The day in which we declared the Revolution against the Ottomans. And also a religious date in Orthodoxy too.
"Specifically wrote the entire LotR..." for that? Nah; as he wrote, this occurred consciously in the rewriting. Not an afterthought, but not central to the work either.
🎉MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!🥰
It's also my birthday!
LotR has a very Catholic worldview.
The movies totally capture the feeling of Friendship , a perfect home, Shire , rivendell etc ..etc .. Peter Jackson did understood what Tolkien was going for ...if you watch the special features of the extended cuts ...you will know how much vision and passion and hard work he put so that the movies could Capture these aspects..when I think about the movies i Don't remember the war or fights , I remember Bilbo and frodo in the Shire, the spectacle of lothlorien and rivendell and most importantly the friendship among the fellowship especially Sam and frodo...
I think you missed the point of the films. While there is action and adventure and clash of battle the themes of home and friendship and resound soundly throughout. When Sam is carrying Frodo up to Mt. Doom. Sacrifice when Faramir goes out to retake Osgiliath when he knows it is almost certain death. When Aragorn leads the charge at the Black Gate that too is shown sacrifice. If the films were only as you say then they would have been a failure, but they are not what you say. Films tell a story in a different way and some things have to change. But no the films are not devoid of these things.
No, they're not devoid of them, nor did Glyer say they were. But her point is exactly right, that the EMPHASIS was profoundly altered. Christopher Tolkien agreed: "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."
Agree. This seemed to me like a gentler version of a culture war read of the movie with remnants a secular/holy divide.
Celeste, as an avid Tolkien scholar, I agree. The films were a different take, but in some ways, many ways I would argue, an improvement, no matter what anyone says. In them, is demonstrated hope, there is love, there is fellowship, there is friendship, there are wounds that never heal, courage beyond measure, and bonds that cannot ever be broken. The Scourging of the Shire was overkill, and Tom Bombadil is over-rated, and so ancillary, but for the barrow downs, and the blades of old, and Merry taking place in the defeat of the Witch King, but even so, it worked our fine without that in the films. The Hobbit was my first full length novel in 2nd grade, and I was 13 when The Return of the King came out in theaters, and I cried my eyes out. I still do. Every time, without fail. Peter Jackson and the crew nailed the Spirit of the story, without question. However, this was still an interesting clip to watch, and I appreciate her insight, though I massively disagree. The films captured the heart and soul of the characters, and while yes, there are some changes, but that doesn't change the underlying message. If anything, it improved upon it. In the books, this doesn't happen, but in the films, Frodo falls over the edge, and Samwise catches his bloody hand. "Don't you let go! ... Reach!" Now tell me that's not an improvement.
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson Not to be rude, but everything you said is just schmaltz that is common in action movies and a lot of sentimentality. Of course you think the movies are perfect because you saw them as a kid. There's no point in nitpicking all the things Jackson outright butchered needlessly for that reason, and because it'd take forever. They're fine adaptations, but still adaptations. If you really dislike the source that much, then maybe it and its themes just aren't for you. And that's fine.
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson The Scouring of the Shire was never overkill. Leaving it out gave the films a very "American" end of war... you come back and everything (but you) is exactly the same. With the Scouring of the Shire we have a very British end of war where everything has been touched by the conflict. It also shows just how much all four of the returning hobbits have changed.
I wish people giving these talks didn’t feel pressured to make silly jokes every 30 seconds to “keep the audience engaged”
That had me sobbing ! Such a wonderful delivery of the master’s words, and a clear exposition of what I believe Tolkien was trying to make alive and real in his books. Greatness is found in the small, in the familiar, and in relationships between us all- living or dead, real or imagined, good or bad.
Even more poignant given I’m watching on 22/3 -nearly the date mentioned in the story. And the weather is looking to be clear and beautiful for then too.
Thank you so much Dr Glyer 😊🙏
Putting Arwen in place of Glorfindel in flight to the ford is an abomination.
It's Hollywood, but surprisingly in this case, no abomination. Luthien was a badass, so there. All is fair, all is fair, in love.
@@matthewrileymcleanwilkinson so perceptive to observe Luthien was a badass. I know of a sorceress-like Nordic-compass-adorned string player/film composer, named for Luthien, who has written badass pieces.
And giving Frodo's defiance of the Nine to Arwen still bothers me.
I think Mr. Jackson gets too much heat considering the Hobbit wasnt his fault. He was brought in extremely late to save the project from the garbage fire Guillermo Del Toro had created. Peter Jackson actually saved The Hobbit from being even more massacred. But by the time he was brought in, there was no more time or budget. So he had to rely on CGI more than he wanted.
He also did everything he could to keep it in New Zealand where as if another director was brought on they were thinking of moving production out of the country thus costing the country a lot of jobs and money. Peter was in an impossible position and given how things went down he really did an admirable job.
Sure, make excuses for him.
I had a friend named Arwen. She was born in the 80s. I’ve never met a cat named Glorfindel.
The map with pencil corrections hit the hardest! You can hear several people in the crowd guilty of that, too.
Peter Jackson did well with the story. There are things in the book that aren't mentioned, but there are moments in the movies, that did better than the books. Facts are stubborn things. The genealogy within the novels is one of my favorite things, however, Pete nailed that last line in the story, and it was profoundly well done in the films. - "Well... I'm back." He said.
And besides, as the meme goes, "Dad, I started reading the Lord of the Rings." - Faramir
"Boromir would have read The Silmarillion..." - Denethor.
The thing I hate most about the Jackson movies (and I hate a lot about the Jackson movies) is how he left out the Scouring of the Shire. Because Tolkien wrote a lot of his experiences of both WWI and WWII in this book. Think what happened after WWII in Britain; the rationing still continued, and while the war was won by Britain and the Allies, it was Germany that was rebuilt, while Britain was totally bankrupt, bombed out and forced to be frugal and austere. And then, of course, communism had started to rear its ugly head again; while British best and brightest were killed on the battlefield, far away from home, seditious elements settled in Academia and elsewhere, preaching about 'gathering and distributing', like the Ruffians they were.
The whole idea that Evil is everywhere, and that Small Evil at home can do as much damage and Great Evil abroad, is very Tolkien.
Communism has never reared any head at all. Stop mistaking the dictatorship of the proletariat that Marx warned would happen, for communism. Tolkien would have been aghast at your lack of comprehension skills and willingness to pervert words and their meanings to serve your own biases.
Tolkien spent his first 10 years in rural South Africa. Basically griwing up in the Shire. Then his mother brought them home to England. About age 12 they converted to Catholicism. And as a Catholic Middle Earth has a very Catholic worldview. Much of the rest is influenced by his service in WW I.
Ok i am a Tolkien nerd, and yes i love Tom Bobadil, and it should be in the movie
No, just no. The movies are long enough without him and he doesn't even that important for the plot.
@@hoarder1919 the movies are not that good anyway
@@hoarder1919
No importance? Ask Angmar.
@@adventussaxonum448 wtf? What importance does Angmar itself has for the movies about the War of the Rings?
Tom Bombadil was only in the book of LOTR becaus tolkien's children loved the character. He is a strange character with no significance to the larger story. It would have made the movie longer and people would have had to many questions. As readers to this day still have so many questions about his character.
"The fabric of everyday life." Beautiful.
I have often wished that, in the mid '60s when the publishers were asking if he had something new, someone had thought of the 'epilogue' chapter and encouraged JRRT to update it to include answers to questions that readers had asked ('Was Smaug the last dragon, Father?') and probably bring the Sindarin passage up to whatever state the language was in. With some Pauline Baynes pictures, it could have made a lovely little volume comparable to Smith of Wootton Major, which is what was published.
Lotr doesnt end with this chapter. You can go further to Aragorns death in his 210 years, building a city by Gimli in caverns of Helms Deep, he even get an invitation to Valinor as a first of naugrim, Sam became a mayor and in his 102 years he sailed to Valinor also etc, etc...
good point! I guess I would say that the stories of Middle-earth do not end with this chapter, but The Lord of the Rings (as Tolkien intended it) does.
@@dianaglyer8486 Would be good to see or reference the source. I am surprised JRRT does not mention this desire in his letters. I lost my 80s letters book and it may have been in their its not in my 90s version. I have always lost things begging to loose facts, which is disturbing because that was my strength.
Personally her style of storytelling sounds to me like a teacher reading a book out loud to her 6yr old students.
Yeah, it's annoying because it feels condescending instead of intimate.
Lol yeah I was waiting for something scholarly or not obvious that supposedly takes a “Tolkien nerd” to know about. But whatever I’m glad she likes Tolkien even if I didn’t hear anything new or thought provoking
I have thought since my first reading of LOTR that Sam was the principle character, the modest companion whose fortitude was no less important than the heroic elves and dwarves and half-elven, the one without whom Frodo could not have parted with The Ring, the one mortal Ring-Bearer who considered how he could use it, who had it in his grasp and turned away from its temptation.
I read The Hobbit in 6th grade after seeing the Rankin-Bass cartoon on television. I was fascinated. A friend saw me reading it (for the 4th or 5th time) on the bus, and told me, "you know he wrote 3 more books, right?" I begged my parents for these other books, and recieved paperbacks from the bookstore. I devoured them, and read the trilogy every year until my 3rd child was born, and I was just too busy. I've seen all the movies, of course, but I still prefer to read the books whenever I can.
With all this knowledge of both the Hobbit and LOTR: You owe it to yourself to read the Silmarillion, if you haven't done so already. It will enhance LOTR's depth and beauty, and shows all the implications and melancholy with a new and profound light.
The Silmarillion gathers a lot of the background story that Tolkien started writing decades before the Hobbit and lotr, and continued to work on until his death.
The first chapters are difficult but important (the tone and style changes a lot in the first few chapters, and then become more similar to lot, albeit often on a much grander scale).
Do not worry too much about the many many names exposed, it is easy to feel overwhelmed or to forget most of them: just continue reading and the important ones will be focused on.
It contains some of Tolkien's very best work.
Fascinating angle on Tolkien’s work, and one I hadn’t properly considered before - thank you.
I want to read that last chapter which she describes so beautifully.
‘But,’ said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, ‘I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done.’
‘So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. But you are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you. And also you have Rose, and Elanor; and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin; and perhaps more that I cannot see. Your hands and your wits will be needed everywhere. You will be the Mayor, of course, as long as you want to be, and the most famous gardener in history; and you will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger and so love their beloved land all the more."
Jackson took a story that was vulnerable to the charge of being "cartoonish" and made it more cartoonish.
jackson was forced to make it by the studio after the initial director quit. he had extremely limited prep time, was forced to make 3 films when the story could easily be covered in 1-2. most of the changes were either because of the rushed time-frame or the requirements of the studio, so stop blaming him for doing what he could with what he was given
I don’t know why people are hating on Peter Jackson. He poured his heart and soul into making the film. And was very familiar with the source material. You have to understand he was making a movie. There’s only so much one can fit into 3 hours. And he had a budget and time frame as well.
Thanks for this, Diana.
I don't think of Shelob when I see a spider. I'm going straight to the souce: I am slaying Ungolianth.
I did name my daughter Arwen, and yes, I still haven't forgiven Jackson for leaving out Tom Bombadil . . .
I get her criticism of the films but they're still great and captured the essence of the story in alot of important places
I think the Hobbit trilogy less so than the LoTR trilogy, but it does genuinely have it's moments as well. I think for instance all the scenes where Bilbo is in the Shire, there and back again, are pretty wonderful. I also think the Lord of the Rings trilogy is possibly as faithful as they could have been to the books whilst still being great box office successes that reached and inspired millions. I don't believe a 1:1 retelling of Tolkien's work in film would have been successful, and would have been an interesting indie film at most.
The films ARE great. My point is that at their heart, they tell a different (and compelling) story.
@@dianaglyer8486 Agreed. I feel the films focus more on the spectacle of the War of the Ring whilst Tolkien is more focused on the individual characters and how the events affect them on a personal level. The films faithfully maintain the themes of the books, such as the importance of home, what people love and fight for and represent the world and cultures of Middle Earth extraordinarily well, but they push Tolkien's primary focus into ones that the films merely footnote. We never really hear the character's thoughts and see/feel the events from their perspectives.
@@RJALEXANDER777 yes!
@@RJALEXANDER777 If y'all believe that, then you weren't paying attention to the movies.
In general, I very much like Peter Jackson's movies, though I'm always annoyed by unnecessary plot changes. The biggest things that bothered me were both in the theatrical release of "The Two Towers": a hasty Treebeard and a Faramir with less than ironclad integrity. The long version works much better on both points, though I'm still bothered by the lengthy dwelling on a temptation that according to the book never happened ("Not if I found it on the side of the road..."). Casting Azog as the villain in "The Hobbit" (dead according to Tolkien's chronology) instead of his son Bolg (who commanded the Goblin army in the battle) was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the story. On the other hand, I very much appreciate the role given to Radagast, to whom I have long thought Tolkien gave short shrift. It would have made perfect sense to have the Valar send a friend of birds and beasts along with Saruman and Gandalf; they needed as much protection from Sauron as the people did (if not more). In such a conception, Radagast did not shirk his mission, but fulfilled it.
Howard Shore's scores are fabulous and are worth listening to over and over again.
My biggest objection was what Jackson did to Denethor - a great, strong and noble man destroyed by despair - one of the great tragic characters of literature. Jackson turns him into a cardboard cut-out that the audience are invited to hate and despise. His death is tragic and pitiful, but when I saw the movie the audience cheered at his (Hollywood-ised) death.
I actually prefer Faramir in the movies. I think it makes him a more admirable character that he was tempted by the Ring and his own desire for his father's affection and stood fast anyone, rather than just being such a perfect paragon of virtue that the temptation never even entered his mind. It makes him feel more human and more inspirational.
I absolutely agree with Steven about Denethor though. Denethor is by far my favorite character in the books. He's so nuanced and tragic, a truly great man done in by the times he was born into, but without whom Gondor likely would have fallen long before Aragorn bothered to show up and do his job. I get why they wrote him the way they did, since in the grand scheme of things his nobility is significantly less important than his fall to madness as far as the plot is concerned, but it's just such a waste that one of Tolkien's few truly morally complex characters gets turned into a caricature.
Do you know what shrift even means?
I had to speed this to 1.5 seconds
wow it actually sounds more normal at 1.5 x XD
First time I've ever applauded a You Tube vid. Brilliant, and very true 🥲
Cinema wins does a great job of explaining the reason this stuff is missing in the movies. The book allows for more detail and a much longer spread out grand epic where as due to the limitations of film, that wouldn’t be possible so instead he goes for a more urgent sense of impending doom. As if it’s make or break time which he does an amazing job at.
Yeah, the same Cinema Wins guy who defended The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. Also Jackson and his team could have made six lotr films. And, if they did this, they would not have destroyed New Zealand's industry and rewritten their culture with the help of the other Modern Libertarians and the Communists if they had filmed in North-western Europe. They would also not have made any of the movies into actions versions (them making a b-rated horror action trilogy is a huge disgrace to Tolkien and anybody else who fought in World-War 1, or war in general). It is because all of the soldiers have ptsd from fighting in them. This is while Jackson makes all of his good lotr characters into Marxists. This is also a huge disservice to the author because he (maybe) liked the machine, but repeatedly warned us about how we could lose sight of nature, our families, and God in general. He was also Pro-life and was a Devout-Roman Catholic. It is most of the Modern Conservative's faults because they do not understand why Hollywood is so powerful right now, and, yet, they are too cowardly to call out Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, and other powerful people.
Tolkienyou arethatJackson'sunderstandPanthercelebratedtalked about
Peter Jackson absolutely did a phenomenal job in the making of LOTR
Excellent!
2× speed and it's all still audible.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
She really does talk slowly
It just now occurred to me that Elrond's house at Rivendell is directly derived from the Cottage of Lost Play described in the Book of Lost Tales.
Sam is the true hero
@Joseph Hebert - You're probably right. Sam's just the working class batman (not Batman) to Frodo's upper middle class officer; he cares for Frodo just as Bunter cares for Wimsey after he gets buried on the front.
What about Gollum? He gets Frodo and Sam through Mordor - he destroys the Ring of Power when Frodo's mind has finally been overcome by it. And like so many heroes in the medieval literature that Tolkien taught, although he achieves the victory, he dies a tragic death. Let's give poor doomed Smeagol his due!
The thing that most clearly shows that Jackson does not understand the LotR is precisely what Dr Glyer points out: that the core of the story is hearth and home. Which is why his greatest mistake in Jackson's movies is the omission of The Scouring of the Shire. When the four hobbits return home and find their homeland occupied by Saruman and his ruffians.
Peter Kreeft expressed it very well in his lecture on ”Ten insights on Evil in the Lord of the Rings”. The great war begins and ends in your house. It is not an adventure far away. It is here.
ok and how much of the 3rd movie we have would need to be removed in order to fit it? books have the luxury of time that a movie doesn't
I enjoy the books and movies separately, I don't need to see an exact copy or "balanced" version as a movie... I have the books to enjoy the original stories. The movies are just some fun and quick indulgence... maybe the movies will lead a few new fans to read the original stories and discover all new adventures, songs and love. Tom will wait for them.
Love your comment. I wish more people would see them as two different entities, both of which can be enjoyed separately and in their own right….
Another difference of J.R.R. Tolkien and P. Jackson: Jackson could not make a holywood film without including any of the main characteristics of a holywood film, for instance friends' treason and lack of confidence (for example when Frodo thought Sam betrayed him, also when Faramir wouldn't let Frodo go) or excessive amounts of blood and agony. There must also be a reason on why he replaced Glorfindel with Arwen in the first film, while Arwen was not a fighter. Tolkien, in my opinion, purposefully avoided such consepts (for instance friends were real, which appears in the Song of Felagund in the Lay of Leithian, he avoided disgusting battle scenes et cetera).
This is the part of the Lay of Leithian I mentioned:
"Then sudden Felagund there swaying
Sang in answer a song of staying,
Resisting, battling against power,
Of secrets kept, strength like a tower,
And trust unbroken, freedom, escape;
Of changing and of shifting shape,
Of snares eluded, broken traps,
The prison opening, the chain that snaps."
Ξενοφώντας Σούλης Tbh that part of the Lay of Leithian that tells of the battle between Finrod and Sauron is one of my favourite parts, is so beautifully written and such an intense powerful moment. And so different to fantasy books written these days, who else would make their fight a battle in song?
I wish Tolkien had written the whole Lay of Leithian. As far as I know, there's only a part of it in "The Lays of Beleriand".
Ξενοφώντας Σούλης Oh if we start there... there is so much that I wish that he had finished. 😅🙈 But the Lay of Leithian is among them, yes.
I agree that he should have finished many more things. But unfortunately he was not an elf, so he died...
@ClandestineOstrich But both Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel were a connection to the Silmarillion, a deeper work of Tolkien and of they are removed, the whole work becomes Mode superficial.
Family, children, fire, sea, stars and stories. Nature, ancestry, life, realms. While we are alive.
I grew up several miles away from Azusa Pacific University. I once tried to get a job there, but I think that I was too Catholic for its taste (just like J.R.R. Tolkien).
1:31 I have a dog actually named Precious after Gollum’s pet name for the One Ring…
1:43 I have a similarly themed map, and it has penciled corrections and additions. If I ever get a large enough LOTR map, I’m certain that I’ll pepper it with corrective sticky notes.
1:52 I’ve actually done that with various other objects.
Because translating a book into a movie is very tricky. But you have to give it to jackson because the adaptation is still gorgeous. It wont be a sweep at the oscars if it missed stuff.
I think it’s unfair to judge a film using the same boxes to tick when criticizing a book.
You can nitpick everything to prove youre an expert of something but that wont change that the books are majestic and the films are also gorgeous on their own.
I totally agree with you: a book and a film are different mediums and should be judged by different criteria. The film is gorgeous, and what Jackson accomplished is amazing. My point is that Tolkien and Jackson are exploring different themes.
A lovely passage - and very well-read! - but I'm rather glad Tolkien held back and published as-is. I think his decision was the right one. Still, lovely to hear the artefact.
For the record: while acknowledging the flaws in Jackson's films, I also still love them. They are, I think, as close as we are likely to get to Middle Earth. At least, LOTR. The Hobbit films were... not good.
If it helps , you can consider the movies as the cliff notes , the extended movies as the 1st edition , the books as the directors cut , silmarillion as the script for a prequel and children of hurin , fall of gondolin , beren & luthien , unfinished tales as spin-offs.
Or not.
Then just keep squabbling.
Roger: I like it! A clever way to consider the various incarnations of this great story.
@@dianaglyer8486 : Being an admirer of Tolkiens universe since mid70’s(born 1965) , Ive also had my sons help me to enable computer games on my Amiga 500 and PC in that universe since the mid 90’s to further allow me to participate in the imaginary world I love. Also , in the 80’s , me and classmates played both Roleplaying games(pen-paper-dice) and boardgames based on Tolkiens work. I love it all.
I dare you to watch the lord of the rings special features through and through and to look me in the face and tell me that Peter Jackson doesn't understand Lord of the Rings. I really despise this sanctimonious gatekeeping going on through the guise of sentimental intellectualism.
Okay, maybe he understood it - if so he chose to alter its foundational concepts, even if he kept most of the story beats the same. Call it "sanctimonious gatekeeping" if you want; I think Glyer's points are perfectly valid, and I still consider Jackson's films to be disappointing bastardizations of a wonderful work of art.
I have a miniature pincher named Pippin and a senator named Tom Cotton.
*The audience are clearly not T. nerds.*
You might be a Tolkien nerd if you have named your cat Pippin and you call him "My Precious"
No idts
Beautiful insight on jrrt vs. pj. Thank you also for presenting final chapter of lotr. Why did it get cut?
The Inklings didn't like it. Tolkien didn't agree with them, but decided to take their advice.
Diana Glyer - thank you for your quick and interesting answer. I'm nobody but I think they were wrong.
Massive points for not only entering the comment section of TH-cam on your own video (a brave thing to do), but answering a question helpfully and succinctly. I applaud you!
I too think that they are wrong. Many of us together cannot be "nobody".
c'mon, everyone know that if you had a cat you would name it Tevildo and not Glorfindel
Hi
Where we find it? (The “plus” of the book)
The part of Bombadil could have been firmly nailed by David Jason. I don’t know of anyone else.
It’s not missing, Tolkien left it out.
So is this in the History of Middle Earth somewhere? Sitting in an archive in the Bodleian?
@Wesley Justice
It's Chapter XI "The Epilogue" of Volume 9 "Sauron's Defeat" of the History of Middle Earth.
1:42 It seems I might be a Tolkien nerd.
am i a tolkien nerd if a name my dog huan and my cat luthien?
My grand parents had a dog named Húan and another named Frodo!
The cat should be named Tevildo
No-no-no-no, you name Luthien something beautiful, strong, lovable and angelic, one who would justify having that name and being named after her. Tolkien didn't like cats.
and you should name yourself Queen Beruthiel :P
I seriously considered naming my dog Haun (awesome name!). But I think hound breeds should get first dibs: Haun: hound of Aman.
Carcharoth, wolf of Angband, the red maw, would be a cool name as well.
I ended up naming my dog Scratch.
Great elephants!
Absolutely!
What about the chapter about Aragorn and Arwen that describes their love story?
An echo of the overarching Bene and Luthien story.
I read somewhere that Tolkien himself admitted that one of the mistakes of LOTR is that there are too few women in it. So the filmmakers did a correction in this matter, also with the creation of Tauriel.
Do you have a source for this lost chapter of LotR? Is it perhaps somewhere in the History of Middle Earth books?
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Well worth reading!
Diana Glyer Thank you!
Rivendell is not the Shire. Rivendell is out there, out there in the world. Tolkien wanted us to know that those beautiful things, that place where you get your cares mended, where there is song and friends and feasting and all kinds of wonderful things, that that is what you will find out there in the world! You might find danger and bad things, but you will find someplace like Rivendell! Tolkien wanted us to know that places like Rivendell, that is what you will find out in the world!
And if you go looking for something like Rivendell, you will find it! You might find danger and bad things, but you will find something like Rivendell! If you look hard enough for it!
You will find friends you have not met yet, you will find forest glens in the Sierras or the Alps! You will find beautiful sacred places. You will find Buddhist temples in Japan and gurus in the Himalayas! You will find the beautiful National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., a beautiful magic place like Notre Dame de Paris, right here in the United States! You will find the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade! You will find beauty and wonder and good friends- if you look for it! Even if today in the current age of the world they may be buried and you have to look for them! You will find your own Rivendell! It's out there!
For me, it's Sacred Spaces, nature and Religious Icons
Dr. Glyer: “You might be a Tolkien nerd if you named your daughter Arwen or your cat Glorfindel”
Me wanting to name my daughter Arwen:
My wife couldn't understand why I wanted to name my Shih-poo Huan the Hound. I tried to explain but she's not a Tolkien Nerd so maybe the next dog will get that name.
I WANT HER AS MY PROF!!!!!😢😊❤
I love you all Mellons! My car's named Galadriel...🧝♀️🥰
I never had heard of this ending, but it really amazed me. Is there a possibility to read this full chapter?
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Well worth reading!
Diana Glyer Great, thank you. I've ordered volume one a few weeks ago, but yet haven't had time to read it.
Where is it my precious is so relatable ahahah
The "Well, I'm back" ending is ten times more effective than this one, I see why Tolkien cut it off
The Tale of Years Fourth Age makes up for the abrupt truncation of the plot, somewhat.
Where can we read it?
March 25th: the feast of the Annunciation- nine months before December 25th. The birth of the Christ child.
Toll keen
1: 37 Mad...Im happy
Every Tolkien geek thinks they know what he was REALLY talking about. But it's not what he was talking about - it's what you're THINKING about. Don't make the mistake of forcing your view onto the author, especially an author whose oeuvre was so personal and who so thoroughly disliked having his writing misinterpreted. It's YOUR idea, not his. And Peter Jackson has just as much right as you to interpret Tolkien the way he wanted to do so, the way HE saw the Professor's writing. The only difference is he had $300M dollars to do it, so more people know his ideas than yours. But that doesn't make you right and him wrong, any more than it makes him right and you wrong. Speak for yourself and stop trying to speak for Tolkien. He would NOT appreciate it.
Tolkien was a monarchist.
i would literally pray to valar
Which one?
@@michaelfrankel8082 mainly Varda yavanna and nienna (as a feanorian, to hell with tulkas
I'm Tolkien nerd
I.think shes wearing the Nauglamir!
JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis are both christians.
Tolkien hated the way Narnia pushed a very obvious Christian allegory
_LOTR_ is in large part a _bildungsroman_ of human beings, whom he anachronistically called _men._ Jackson didn't get that all.
Where can I find that last chapter
It is from page 92 of "The Company They Keep," a book about the Inklings. You can also find it in Volume 9 of "The History of Middle-earth." Wonderful stuff.
Thank you!
Thanks so much for sharing this. What a lovely ending chapter. I always felt it was too short. The Hobbit movies are an abomination unto Tolkien. There is more than enough material of Middle Earth to "pad" it into a trilogy, but they had to invent things that go down like a rat sandwich. I didn't enjoy the first one, I nearly walked out of the second one, haven't thought of watching the third. They should be stricken from the record. I still can't forgive what PJ did to Faramir, as well....I could go on...
Recently I pulled out Fellowship to read about Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, the happiest couple in the trilogy. A couple chapters late I endured the Weathertop telling and the name I have seen hijacked by a sullen pouty-lipped badass sorceress who surrounds herself with bowed instruments and GoT banners. Once I had enjoyed the sunny yellow Lothlorien and the bleakness closed again, I finished the volume and puit it aside, to pick up the Tolkien Reader.
if you are a tolkien nerd you hate both amazon and the rings of power with passion
all of high school.
Actually I call my girlfriend Arwen and sometimes Arianwen😊
I wonder how many heads are going to explode with Amazons er fan fiction hits the tv screen,Its going to be crap isn't it
Tolkien was talking the story to his children. It is the job of the writer to describe, in detail, with the luxury of time that a visual 120 minute film does not have. At the end of the first and third, the love of home is front and center.
Did you watch the backstory? Why don't you make a Hobbit movie? Write the screenplay. Good Luck.
Haven't you heard? All the tolkein nerds can be found with Amazon
WHHHAAA? Are those fightin' words?? May the best Dwarf win!!!😁🤣🍻
Legolas does not belong in The Hobbit. Neither was Radagast. Peter Jackson made 3 movies out of trilogy--great! So why did he have to mess everything up and make The Hobbit into 2 movies????? Arrrggghhhhhh
easy, the studio had decided it wanted 3 and then the original director quit. Jackson was brought on to fix it but wasn't given any time to prep and organize (something like 2 months prep compared to the 3 years to plan for LOTR) so was basiclly winging it with no prep in order to keep up with the studios timeline
I'm fan, but not a child no more. You have to make an entertaining Movie, or you would have chunks of voice over. Or spend 20mins while the camera pans around a house.
I prefer Dr. Ryan Reeves
March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation commemorates the appearance of the Angel Gabriel before the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was on that day that Jesus Christ, our Lord and loving Redeemer, the source and reason for our highest hope, took flesh in our Blessed Mother's womb. The real 'secret' about Tolkien is that he was a faithful Catholic who wrote Catholic fiction, that while loved by many, can only be fully appreciated by faithful Catholics.
I prefer Tolkien scholar,
The movies are far inferior to the books.