The Edoras drinking game between Gimli and Legolas always annoyed me greatly, and probably more than it should have. Also, that drinking game indicated to me that Peter Jackson & Co. had not read The Hobbit, seeing as Legolas' kin getting blackout drunk was the reason why Bilbo was able to effect the Dwarves' escape from the Elvenking's Halls in Mirkwood.
I think that's implied to be special elven liquor made by the folks at lake town out of specific ingredients imported from Rhun. It's one of the reasons that lake town remained somewhat prosperous even though they were essentially a long term refugee community, they had basically a monopoly on the manufacture and distribution of what seems to be the only substance really capable of getting elves drunk.
@@factorfantasyweekly I'm more inclined to follow a variation of "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence" here. 😂 I think they really just forgot about it while in the weeds of making these movies.
It also makes me mad in the hobbit where the wood elves have a feast that's all salad. Makes absolutely 0 sense that these legendary archers, trained by Orome (literally the huntsman god), would be vegetarian. Hell, in the lore they are the same elves that hunted the petty-dwarves to extinction "for sport" because they didnt know that they were sapient...
I also disliked that strongly, and a lot of what is mentioned in this video too. I have not read the book (only the first few chapters), but I always had the feeling that a lot was made up. Exactly what Gibby here says, I have always felt to be true: the first movie felt the most true to the story, the second one a bit less, and the third felt far more made up.
People often criticise the movies for their character changes, citing characters like Faramir, Denethor and Aragorn, and that is a valid criticism. But another character who I rarely see mentioned is Elrond, and that ticks me off because I think the changes made to Elrond are as bad or worse than any of the more commonly criticised ones Arwen, as a half elf, has the exceptional privilege, given by Iluvatar, to be allowed to choose her place amongst the Children of Iluvatar, and she decides her place is amongst Men because of Aragorn. Elrond is naturally upset by this, but as one of the wisest people on Middle Earth he understands she has the right to make that decision (if God himself tells your daughter to make a choice you don't just go "nope! I make this choice instead) and accepts it as long as he knows she will be left in good hand (hence the demand Aragorn becomes king first) Film Elrond, on the other hand, denies Arwen her choice (i.e. tries to seize a divine gift from his daughter), then manipulates her ("gaslights" her, using words like "don't I deserve your love") as well as Aragorn to try and break up the two, and refuses to reforge Narsil even though he knows it would help Aragorn in his quest (i.e. he sabotages the efforts against Sauron for his own desires). He is redeemed in the end, and normally I wouldn't oppose a character like that - a foolish man doing foolish things for selfish reasons has a revelation of how wrong he is and changes course, pretty typical redemption arc - but this is _Elrond,_ one of the wisest beings in the story. Elrond shouldn't be redeemed, he shouldn't be this viceful in the first place! The only benefit of the doubt I can give Jackson on this is that he didn't actually understand how despicable his Elrond's actions are and/or that Elrond was supposed to be wise and morally good character, instead of intentionally wanting to ruin his character (who is possibly my favorite in the books, hence I'm so serious about this). We need more debunkings of movie-Elrond!
Believe me, prior to The Two Towers, the changes made to Elrond were the ones that pissed me off the most....and remained in the top 3 even by the point I stopped watching Return of the King.....and IMHO Jackson doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt for ruining such an amazing character.
Elrond isn't going to support Aragon as king unless Aragon wants to be king. Book Aragon was an eighty year old man who'd long since come to terms with his destiny assuming it were ever even a question. Movie Aragon is plagued by so many personal and purposeful doubts.
When Hama demanded their weapons when first arriving at Meduseld, nobody was willing to comply. It was the fact that Aragorn surrendered Anduril, begrudging as it was, that convinced the others to disarm as well. They all knew how important Anduril was, and if Aragorn would be separated from it they had no standing to hold on to their weapons.
13:24 - best rationalisation I can think of is that just seeing him isn't enough to tip off Sauron. When he reveals himself later, he's specifically looking back into the Palantir and matching wills against Sauron, whereas here he just grabs it briefly, so all Sauron would've seen is some guy. Later on, Aragorn specifically declares himself as Isildur's heir (iirc, he even shows off Anduriel as proof he is who he says he is).
And to go a bit further on that, since Aragorn is the "true master" (i can expand on this if anyone is interested) of the palantir, all of the remaing palantirs in middle earth in fact, he can control them better than anyone else, even better than Sauron can. So even though he is not certain what it is at the time (book and movie) he would still be more protected against Sauron than anyone else, so just holding it for a few seconds, even with Saurons focus being on his palantir would give nothing away.
I really wished that they had included Halbarad, the Dunedain, Elrohir and Elladan. They were missed out on, much like Imrahil of Dol Amroth, and I think that they would have been well received by fans who had only seen the movies. I remember that as a kid, reading even just their names in the books sparked my imagination-
That's quite interesting that Peter Jackson changed more and more from the books per movie to me as of yet still being a movie-only fan (I've just recently started the first book). Because I've always felt that the order they came out is also their order of greatness, the first being the best.
Not giving the Palantir to Aragorn is another example of JP delaying Aragorns change from Strider to King Aragorn. Book : In Fellowship he has Narsil reforged. In Towers he openly proclaims himself to Eomer and displays Anduril. Here he claims the Palantir to later use it AND bent it to his will over Sauron thus knowing of the attack on the coast and counters it with the Grey Company showing his strategic ability. Plus he’s given the standard with seven stars and the tree, the standard of the High King of Arnor and Gondor. PJ removes all of this. I’m VERY grateful this movies were made and made well but these are errors IMHO.
I read the books over 30 years ago, and listened to the audiobooks about 25 years ago, and I remember going to the midnight showing of the premiere of The Fellowship of the Ring, and coming out disappointed. Disappointed at the plot changes, disappointed at the missing characters (no Tom Bombadil!) and disappointed with silliness like Frodo shyly asking Gandalf which way to go right after leaving Rivendell. But I did enjoy the movie, and wondered if I would have enjoyed it more if I didn’t know the books well. When Two Towers came out, I had a similar experience, but with less overall enjoyment, again due to awareness of what was changed from the books (and also annoyance at stupid choices Jackson made, like having mounted soldiers charge downhill on horseback! Why, Pter, why? There was no reason to film something so ridiculous) and, given my disappointment with Two Towers, I didn’t even bother to see Return of the King in the theater, I waited for the DVD. Carefully watching this series over the past weeks, especially this one today, I have concluded that I was right, I would have been able to enjoy the movies much more if I hadn’t already been so familiar with the books. Similarly with Rings of Power on Prime, I get so caught up in all the details that they get completely wrong (especially overall timeline, and the forging of the rings) I really struggle to let go of what I know about the history of Middle Earth and just enjoy the show. This series is really remarkable for how detailed the explanations go, without being boring or pedantic, and I think this had led me to a better understanding and appreciation of what Jackson was trying to do, so I’m thinking I might try watching all the extended edition DVDs (I have them laying around somewhere) and try to let go of worrying about the changes, and just enjoy the movies on their own terms.
The silliness of Frodo asking Right or Left when leaving Rivendell was not in the theatrical version but in the extended version :) But I had the same disappointment as you describe when first watching the movies. Mainly due to the plot changes: Aragorn being afraid to become king, Gandalf fearing to go to Moria because there would be a Balrog there, Frodo solving the riddle of the Gates of Moria etc
22:59 I feel like you don’t understand Elrond. “as long as,” no. It’s fate that Aragorn becomes king, and is not motivation (at least as far as Arwin is concerned). Elrond is saying ‘my daughter is awesome, and won’t become mortal except to an awesome dude, you awesome dude.’ The closest thing he says eluding to disapproval is that he doesn’t want to talk about for a bunch of years, but I don’t think it’s implied that he’s upset about their relationship
Yes, we have A LOT of changes this week. And answering your question - the craziest one for me is that we didn't even start The Return of the King book yet. All of that is still happening in The Two Towers, and some things (for Aragorn and Arwen especially) were established in The Fellowship of the Ring.
What I think is a very important plot change is that in the movie, the Videocall of Sauron-Pippin through the Palantir ends violently with Aragorn taking the stone. This must have made Sauron understand that the Palantir was not in Isengard and Pippin was not imprisoned by Saruman. The fact that Aragorn held the stone for 1 second, probably though was not enough for Sauron to see him as he truly was. When Pippin describes (in the book) his dialogue with Sauron, Sauron asked him who he was, he at first did not answer until it was impossible not to answer and he then said: a Hobbit. And then it seemed to him that Sauron saw him and he laughed. So, probably, the way Palantiri worked (or at least how they worked in the hands of Sauron), they needed some time until he could really see the other person using it.
I've nearly lost friends over these movies. Friends: "We LOVE LotR!! These movies are GREAT!!" 😀 Me: "Yeah, they're good movies... but I really don't like the changes they made from the books." 🤔 Friends: "What do you mean? We read the books, and we thought they did a wonderful job." 😀 Me: "You read them? Do you actually remember what you read? Like, at ALL?" 🤨 Friends: "What? I didn't notice anything..." 🤔 Me: "Dude. Seriously. We could spend HOURS going over all the differences, but for a start, when in the movies did you hear anyone say: 'All that is gold does not glitter...'? ICONIC PLOT POINT, but there are PLENTY of others." 😐 No "Riddle of Strider," and Strider's not even carrying the "sword that was broken" when he meets Frodo. They omitted that entire bit, rewriting several scenes in a hokey attempt to fill the gap. How does anyone make a LotR movie and omit that?
When I watched the Jackson trilogy I felt like I was watching a jumbled up trailer of the book. They cut out half of the Fellowship part of the book. They cut up and cut out and changed all three of the sections of the book. Then they stuck in Jackson’s ideas of how the story should have gone. Frodo was actually fifty years old by the time that they left the shire. They were small people but they were not all that young. They used a 19 year old kid to play Frodo. Pippin was the youngest of the four Hobbits but he was considered, by our way of aging, to be in his twenties. They were not considered to have “come of age” until they were thirty. Almost the entire journey to the Prancing Pony was cut out of the movie. It made the basis of the story unexplained except for knowledge of a ring. I understand that parts had to be cut out but Jackson cut huge parts out only to write his own version of the story. Theoden King was not uncooperative. He listened to Gandalf. He was grateful for being delivered from Worm Tongue. Aragorn did not fall off a cliff. There were no elves at Helms Deep. It was ridiculous for them to put in a drinking party just a day after the many soldiers were massacred at Helms Deep as though no one cared that they lost their best friends. They made the dwarf look like a fool through the whole movie when he was really very valiant. The character changes of the heroes were most disturbing to me. Making Aragorn into a whiny baby not wanting to accept his rightful place in history was ridiculous. Aragorn was 84 years old at the time of The Fellowship. He had been fighting against the enemy’s attacks for many years already. He had already had his “character ark.” Making Theoden into a whiny selfish cowardly King was inaccurate and was also unnecessary. Theoden was more than ready to offer his life to fight the enemy. Frodo did not spend all of his time whinnying either. He was determined right up to the end to complete his task although he did not believe that they would ever make it back home and he was tortured by the effects of the ring. The list of changes that Jackson made goes on and on. Christopher Tolkien found the movies an insult to his father’s work. He was disgusted with the movies because they had made his father’s book into an action movie which the book certainly was not meant to be. They did need to cut down the size of the movie but they did not have to add their own version of the story. They could have kept the spirit of the story but they wanted their version instead. Yes, it was a beautiful movie. Those who did costumes, the music, and scouted the places that they would shoot at did an excellent job. The massacre of the story was sickening. Of course, the movies did well. Most Americans do not read so they had no idea what the original story was about. I recommend for everyone to read the book. If you don’t have time to sit down and read a book then get the audio version by Phil Dragash. It is excellent. (Also very close by.) Some only publish parts of the book so make sure you listen to the full version. The voices of the characters sound much like the voices of the actors in the movies. Much of the music that was used in the movies is used throughout the audiobook as well. Find the true story that Tolkien wrote. It will keep you listening to the end….which is quite a few hours.
Speaking of Aragorn carrying Narsil around since they left Rivendell, he also carried the shards (or at least the broken hilt) around with him before that. They weren't just on display
I don’t mind Theoden taking a little time to decide to go to aid Minis Tirith. It adds a little bit of a character arc to him, and it helps to have that in a movie. That before the battle of Pelenor Fields, he wasn't sure if he was worthy to join his fathers in death. But after the decision, he poured his whole heart into defeating Sauron's forces and became worthy. In the books, most of the character development was offscreen. It's better if the development is on screen. Show, don't tell.
The whole palantir plot point is really important in the books. Gandalf explicitly says that Sauron will be confused for the next day or so as to what has happened to the ring and the hafling he presumed Saruman caught and advised them all to try 5o make the best of these hours. After Aragorn showed himself and was able to wrest control of it from Sauron, Sauron went into panic mode. He thought that Aragorn now had the ring and decided to attack Minas Tirith much sooner than he originally planned, before the king could return. It plays well into his belief that they would use the ring to challenge him and after his defeat at the pelennor fields, he is convinced that Aragorn has the ring. So basically, Gandalf and then Aragorn tricked him to get his attention focused on themselves instead of Frodo and sam
Was the scene with the later re-forge and Elrond gifting it exclusive to the extended cuts? Because I remember telling my buddy in the theater that Aragorn had this 'magic sword', so to speak, way back in the Two Towers, or maybe at the end of Fellowship. Now, I too, only have the extended versions, so it's hard to check, is why I ask.
One note here from the book, at first Sauron doesn't see it is Pippin in The Orthanc Stone but Saruman, asking him "Why haven't you been replying for so long?" THEN he realizes it's not him and says "Hey, who are you?!" before he exorsist Pippin to tell Saruman his message.
my senior year of highschool I was so exited for this movie I had been reading the books every year including the Silmarillion. I saw Peter Jackson say in a interview that he keep it word for word scene for scene from the books. As soon as they did not bother with The Old Forest, or Tom Bombadil I was done with thinking they were going to be faithful. Then each movie just got worse and worse with what was crucial details being left out. They made 3 Amazing action films but they were not the epic fantasy of Tolkien. Subsequently that is why Jackson got sued by the Tolkien Estate for the movies
It feels to me that where Tolkien viewed men as noble but easily corrupted, Jackson portrays men as weak and inevitably corrupted and that without elves and wizards men would be doomed. A lot of the early small changes that snowballed in the end seem to be focused on how weak men are. I'd be afraid to see what Jackson would do with a sequel.
In the Actors Commentary, Billy Boyd revealed, origincally, there was going to a be shot of Pippin inside of the Palantír when an asteral projection of himself is surrounded by flames, being psychically and magically tortured by Sauron. Though his part was filmed in front of a bluescreen, the effects were never done as this bit was cut from the movie.
They cut Elrond's sons and the Dunédain because as screenwriter Philipa Boyens have stated both in The Two Towers and Return of the King commentaries, you can't introduce any more smaller characters so late in the story (of all three films, it's meant as one big story like Tolkien considered The Lord of the Rings to be ONE book and not three) plus finding actors for the elves is really hard as they need to look like the hottest people on Earth without look modern super models with unnaturally slender waist and big lips. Not many people are like that, even among celebs (which Jackson wasn't to keen to use unless they fit the roles, hence why he didn't audition the likes of Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson), so finding elf actors is a real hell. The reason that they to cut unimportant characters from the movies are because you don't want to waste screentime on those characters who just appears only in one scene and are never heard of again, since screentime is precious (no pun intended) and dragging the movie for too long would bore those who haven't read the books. Plus, if you want characters to have significance, you ahve to introduce them as early as possible to justify their apperance and screentime, just to introduce Elrond's sons and the Dunédain this late and having very little significance to the plot with no real introduction is like how Bard was introduced just suddenly in The Hobbit book, that's why he was introduced earlier in the story and gave him more significance to the plot in the movies. I man, imagine that you DID have Elrond's sons or the Dunédain in the movies, you'd see why that wouldn't work, neither with Prince Imrahil, Quickbeam, Glorfindel, Radagast (though he does appear in The Hobbit tirlogy), Erkenbrand, Beregond, Bregil, the list goes on.
Something that has stuck with me for the last ~20 years was something Phillipa said, paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly: If you follow things back you'll see that these changes were necessary because of things that came before them. Of course doing what she said I found it was mostly because of unnecessary changes they made for some reason.
@Welverin honestly it really annoys me when people excuse a lot of the unnecessary changes because "they had to adapt it for a film". I think they did a great job but the LOTR would not be that hard to make a 1 for 1 movie series that follows the books. Literally the only changes that probably were necessary were the omissions of Tom bombadil and of the scouring of the shire and those could both be in the extended editions.
While the Eowyn scene was made up for the movie, her dream about The Great Wave washing though the landscape, is in the book but it was Faramir who had this dream in the book (which Boromir tells about in The Council of Elrond). The reason it was shifted over to Eowyn was because Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philpa Boyens couldn't find a way to use it for Faramir for the movie but they could with Eowyn, hence why it is in the movie. The dream by the way was something that J.R.R: Tolkien had as a child, about a dream coming in and flooding the lands, similiar to how Atlantis sunk to the sea. This inspired him later in life the story about the island of Númenor where Aragorn's ancestors and most of the people of Gondor. In the later part of Second Age after he forged The One RIng, failed to get the Elven Rings but got the others which he gave to the nine men (who'd become the Ringwraiths) and the dwarves, The Númenorean army surrounded him in Mordor, he surrendered himself in the beautiful form of Annatar and was imprisoned there. He was released but through hard work he became King Ar-Phârazon's advisor and he convinced him to send a fleet to Valinor to steal immortality from the Valar. He did but as men were forbidden to go there and broke their promise, Eru Illuvatar, the creation god, parted the sea and the whole fleet with the king sunk inside in a cavern underneath the earth to be stuck there to the end of time, and sent a wave which flooded Númenor and killed Saruon's physical form, which prevented him from taking on a handsome form ever again. The men that were faithful to the Valar and elves, including Elendil, Isildur and Anarion, managed to escape in time and formed the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor, setting the events of The Battle of Last Alliance as seen in the prolouge of Fellowship of the Ring.
I started reading the book after I watched the first movie, but I didn't finish it. But Arwen's vision really irritated me like mad. It felt so out pf place. Theoden not wanting to help also puzzled me.
I’ve always been furious about the scene where Arwen decides to stay because she has a vision of her son. Arwen and Aragorn had a number of daughters too, but apparently they weren’t enough for Arwen (or the movie makers) to care about.
As far as movie Aragorn goes… Saruman didn’t believe that Aragorn was anything other than a Ranger and even said something about Gandalf thinking he found the heir and how that was ridiculous since “that line was broken”. So why would Sauron think differently? The initial touch would have just been some rando. And I think actually sets up really well for Aragorn later to be like “hey b*tch. It’s actually me.” As for the rest of this video, I appreciate hearing the differences between the two and it makes it interesting knowing how the movies were pieced together I would like to gently remind everyone that adaptations from books to movies aren’t easy. It’s absolutely valid to be disappointed when a movie doesn’t match the book. But please remember that you can’t put the experience of reading a book into a visual media like that. Especially with the detail of Tolkien. “Adaptation” is an important description. I understand wanting to see everything you imagined on the big screen. But it just doesn’t work like that… even if it were a tv series instead.
Yes, obviously you can have a fantastic film trilogy without it being accurate to the source material. No one is arguing against that. It's a bit weak and disingenuous to use that as a defense for some of these things, in my opinion. I enjoy the movies as well, but the older I get, the more I think that was JRR Tolkiens true legacy was, ultimately, his real contribution was a manuscript against nihilism, despair, and the spirit of the age. Peter Jackson's movies worked because at the end of the day, he was trying to tell a hero's story, he wasn't a nihilist (what makes the trilogy different than Amazon's abhorrent subversion) but that spirit of the age is still in there, infecting things. Its sad to see this kind of thinking, this disdain for humanity, this shitty greywash of like, oh well no one is really good - aragorn doesnt want to be king, and umm, let's make frodo a little cry baby and denethor is this insane little man child, faramir cannot refuse the Ring, etc. Oh and also let's make everything a classic blockbuster action moment, clichés an everything, let's have absolutely no shame and infuse every moment with tension and physicality - when we're not doing the aragorn/arwen soap opera telepathy stuff. If there's any defense for Peter Jackson's loose handling of the source material, honestly - Hollywood. We're lucky these movies were even made. Lord of the Rings is too wholesome and based, it's too good. It begets too much virtue for greasy Hollywood executives and producers to get behind. This was as close as it ever could have gotten. If it were made even just a few years later, I'm sure it could have been a lot worse. So yeah, all this to say, just read the books. That's my opinion. We should all be trying to get offline and away from screens anyway. If social media - and honestly, Hollywood as a whole, and all that it is and represents - existed in the Lord of the Rings, would that be something found among the Wise, among the blissful Shirefolk, or would that be a device of Sauron, a foul craft of the enemy, a rift created by Morgoth. So yeah, just read the books. My 2 cents.
I think Aragorn was able to confront Sauron later in the movie because he had Anduril, where as in Isengard, he didn't. Though you know, he should have had Anduril since Rivendell lol
With regard to Legolas sensing Sauron in the Palantir, I believe elves existed in both the physical and the spiritual realm. so while he may not have had the power to see spirits like Galadriel or Glorfindel could, he would still be aware of such a powerful presence nearby (despite really being asleep at that time)
@@factorfantasyweeklyThings will be ok-ish if you include appendix stories in Tolkien’s works (there is a lot of padding in the movies of course), until the dwarves split. Then character changes are permanently “love triangle and injury ruined the characters, all dwarves went to the Lonely Mountain”.
I totally understand needing to make thematic changes to the movies for the sake of time, character economy, or to allow the inclusion of plots not necessarily seen in the books. The inclusion of the Arwen romance is one of those. Since that plot was really only seen in the appendices including it in the movies required some major deviations. Some changes, however, don’t seem to make any sense whatsoever. My biggest issue was always their changing Aragorn. His disinterest in his kingship or heritage. Not carrying Narsil, and constantly dismissing discussions of him being the rightful king. That is so completely at odds with the character as written as to be incomprehensible.
Actually in the books even up to the return of the king Aragon doesn't want people to call him king and won't sit the throne of Gondor until after Sauron is defeated. So not totally against his character.
Originally Pippin was just going to take The Palantír from Gandalf but Billy Boyd suggested to Peter Jackson to use a jug to replace it Indiana Jones-style. He said to Boyd "We can't use that, It's too small, it's not hobbit scale.". It turns out however that Weta Workshop did the jug in hobbit scale (a third bigger than it'd be for a human size prop, since hobbits are a third the size of a human) just in case. How fortunatley this happy accident happened as it'd mean another change to the list if it wasn't (of course the change to the mug makes more sense as a random rock wouldn't have made sense to have inside of the bedroom at Edoras) and every little homage satisfies the fans.
The cutting of the grey company is a huge shame, I think. But seeing as Jackson cut any reference to Anarion, to the reason for the contested lineage of Gondor, to The kingdom of Arnor at all, - I understand why he wouldn't bother with all these extra people, just to show that Aragorn was already a chief of the remnants of the Northern Dunedain. But, if they hadn't added in all that 45 minutes of non canon filler in the previous film, they definitely could have fit them in. Really, most of the biggest changes in the trilogy came down to where they wanted the second film to end.
In JP version the short time Aragorn held the Palantir may not have been enough time for Sauron to read any of Aragorns mind or realize who he is plus Sauron would’ve been laser focused on “hobbit = RING” rather than who just cut the connection. Lastly in using a Palantir the physical orientation is relevant so perhaps Aragorn wasn’t oriented correctly for Sauron to talk to him or see him? That last is very nitpicking.
It is my understanding from In Deep Geek that a palantir doesn’t just work. You have to hold it while facing the other stone to make a connection. So if Aragorn wasn’t facing Mordor when he grabbed the stone after Pippin, there would have been no connection.
That depends on the palantir. The three "lesser" stones in the southern gondor (Orthanc, minas anor (tirith) and Minas ithil (morgul)) work exactly like that. The stone of Elendil in the tower hills only looks back to the outermost west. The other two stones of the north that were lost with Arvedui (formerly of Amon sul and Anuminas i belive) probably worked like that too, but i don't think Tolkien said for certain. The master stone (in Osgiliath) worked in any direction, and could listen in to any other stones... but it was lost in the kinstrife.
You're exactly right in what you said, although you did sound a bit more hostile this week, lol. I am reading the books again right now and am almost in the same exact spot as this video. As I said before, when I read the books now, I visualize the actors and voices from the films, so in my head, it's like I'm watching the movies, but entirely lore accurate. 😂
where do we learn most of this stuff on Aragorn and Arwen's relationship? Because Arwen is barely a character in the books so as I have heard. Is it from the appendices or from Tolkin's letters?
@@factorfantasyweeklyI thought it was most likely the appendix. Though it’s interesting to know that Tolkien’s letters also had some details. Most likely stuff he couldn’t fit in or had not thought about yet. Since Tolkien never stopped creating until his death.
What surprised me while reading the Return of the king was what Aragorn said to Eowin before heading to the path of dead. Word to word what Wormtongue said to Eowin in Two towers.
I think in the movies, Sauron doesn't know who Aragorn is the first time he touches the Palantir. For all he knows it's some random guy. Later on Aragorn explicitly reveals himself as Isildur's heir and shows himself to be in possession of Andúril. But yeah, confusing.
There are too many changes that stray too far from the book It's why the book is superior. Which is a bummer, because Return of the King is my favorite book of the trilogy.
Tangential question: If any blade that cut the Witch King must perish, why didn't Narsil melt away when it cut off the finger of Sauron? Was Narsil just THAT MUCH better than any Numenorean blade?
@@headrockbeats Yes, but if it has any magical properties at all, they never seem to have been mentioned. If Strider knew that the shards of Narsil could hurt the Witch King without suffering damage, maybe he should have used one of those. Half a sword is still better than a burning stick.
@@headrockbeats Oh, and I never said Narsil was a Numenorean blade. On the contrary, I explicitly asked if it is THAT MUCH BETTER than ANY Nemenorean blade -- aside from being part of the Gondorian regalia.
@@christosvoskresye No magical properties are ever mentioned. But I don't think I agree about the burning stick; Half a sword - even an ancient, magical sword - is almost useless. Besides, I don't think that's even a consideration at that particular point in the story. He's surrounded by Nazgul and needs a way to drive them off.
@@headrockbeats Half of Narsil is probably better than any "sword" ever wielded by a hobbit ... which, I'll concede, still makes it less than half as useful as if it were whole. Also, at this point the Nazgul were still shockingly timid and did not really press their advantage, though it is unfair to expect him to have known that. Maybe a better reason is not what would happen to the sword, but what would have happened to him. I suppose that even if the sword survived, he would have taken the shock that Merry and Eowyn did, and the hobbits would have been truly helpless at that point. But then, their situation was practically hopeless already.
sounds as complicated as the story of Lucifer that is told cause it is pulled from every book of the Bible when in truth it is only in Isaiah 14:4-24 saying he is "King of Babylon" and "brought down to hell" and chained "to the sides of the pit" not chained to the bottom of the pit where Satan even the Devil will be.
Arwen's vision of her son is, of course, completely absent from Tolkien. Yet of all the changes, this is the one I think Tolkien would most like. Having Arwen choose to live and die as a human not because of romantic love but because of mother's love fits well with Tolkien's Catholicism, and it frankly fills in an aspect largely missing from his books. Lobelia Sackville-Baggins should not be the most prominent example of a loving mother.
I just can not get over the constant mispronunciation of "Palantiri". There's an "i" at the end. It makes an "ey" sound. "Pal - an - tear - ey". "Palantir" is a software company. Please highlight this comment in your next video to spread the word.
I’m not saying I disagree with you… but I am saying that Tolkien literally named the chapter “The Palantir”… Palantiri is the plural, since there were many.
Read along with me! 📖 Claim “Return of the King” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/fofrotk 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
The Edoras drinking game between Gimli and Legolas always annoyed me greatly, and probably more than it should have. Also, that drinking game indicated to me that Peter Jackson & Co. had not read The Hobbit, seeing as Legolas' kin getting blackout drunk was the reason why Bilbo was able to effect the Dwarves' escape from the Elvenking's Halls in Mirkwood.
Perhaps the wine that they drank was a lot stronger than the beer from Rohan? Idk just trying to make sense of it all 😂
I think that's implied to be special elven liquor made by the folks at lake town out of specific ingredients imported from Rhun.
It's one of the reasons that lake town remained somewhat prosperous even though they were essentially a long term refugee community, they had basically a monopoly on the manufacture and distribution of what seems to be the only substance really capable of getting elves drunk.
@@factorfantasyweekly I'm more inclined to follow a variation of "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence" here. 😂
I think they really just forgot about it while in the weeds of making these movies.
It also makes me mad in the hobbit where the wood elves have a feast that's all salad. Makes absolutely 0 sense that these legendary archers, trained by Orome (literally the huntsman god), would be vegetarian. Hell, in the lore they are the same elves that hunted the petty-dwarves to extinction "for sport" because they didnt know that they were sapient...
I also disliked that strongly, and a lot of what is mentioned in this video too.
I have not read the book (only the first few chapters), but I always had the feeling that a lot was made up. Exactly what Gibby here says, I have always felt to be true: the first movie felt the most true to the story, the second one a bit less, and the third felt far more made up.
People often criticise the movies for their character changes, citing characters like Faramir, Denethor and Aragorn, and that is a valid criticism. But another character who I rarely see mentioned is Elrond, and that ticks me off because I think the changes made to Elrond are as bad or worse than any of the more commonly criticised ones
Arwen, as a half elf, has the exceptional privilege, given by Iluvatar, to be allowed to choose her place amongst the Children of Iluvatar, and she decides her place is amongst Men because of Aragorn. Elrond is naturally upset by this, but as one of the wisest people on Middle Earth he understands she has the right to make that decision (if God himself tells your daughter to make a choice you don't just go "nope! I make this choice instead) and accepts it as long as he knows she will be left in good hand (hence the demand Aragorn becomes king first)
Film Elrond, on the other hand, denies Arwen her choice (i.e. tries to seize a divine gift from his daughter), then manipulates her ("gaslights" her, using words like "don't I deserve your love") as well as Aragorn to try and break up the two, and refuses to reforge Narsil even though he knows it would help Aragorn in his quest (i.e. he sabotages the efforts against Sauron for his own desires).
He is redeemed in the end, and normally I wouldn't oppose a character like that - a foolish man doing foolish things for selfish reasons has a revelation of how wrong he is and changes course, pretty typical redemption arc - but this is _Elrond,_ one of the wisest beings in the story. Elrond shouldn't be redeemed, he shouldn't be this viceful in the first place!
The only benefit of the doubt I can give Jackson on this is that he didn't actually understand how despicable his Elrond's actions are and/or that Elrond was supposed to be wise and morally good character, instead of intentionally wanting to ruin his character (who is possibly my favorite in the books, hence I'm so serious about this). We need more debunkings of movie-Elrond!
Believe me, prior to The Two Towers, the changes made to Elrond were the ones that pissed me off the most....and remained in the top 3 even by the point I stopped watching Return of the King.....and IMHO Jackson doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt for ruining such an amazing character.
Elrond isn't going to support Aragon as king unless Aragon wants to be king. Book Aragon was an eighty year old man who'd long since come to terms with his destiny assuming it were ever even a question. Movie Aragon is plagued by so many personal and purposeful doubts.
@DisFantasy still doesn't change how much of a douche they made Elrond into. He lacked all of the great qualities he had in the book.
When Hama demanded their weapons when first arriving at Meduseld, nobody was willing to comply. It was the fact that Aragorn surrendered Anduril, begrudging as it was, that convinced the others to disarm as well. They all knew how important Anduril was, and if Aragorn would be separated from it they had no standing to hold on to their weapons.
13:24 - best rationalisation I can think of is that just seeing him isn't enough to tip off Sauron. When he reveals himself later, he's specifically looking back into the Palantir and matching wills against Sauron, whereas here he just grabs it briefly, so all Sauron would've seen is some guy. Later on, Aragorn specifically declares himself as Isildur's heir (iirc, he even shows off Anduriel as proof he is who he says he is).
And to go a bit further on that, since Aragorn is the "true master" (i can expand on this if anyone is interested) of the palantir, all of the remaing palantirs in middle earth in fact, he can control them better than anyone else, even better than Sauron can.
So even though he is not certain what it is at the time (book and movie) he would still be more protected against Sauron than anyone else, so just holding it for a few seconds, even with Saurons focus being on his palantir would give nothing away.
It always amuses me how far some people will go to rationalise Jackson's poor adaptation skills.
@@TheMarcHicks It always amuses me how far some people will go to show they are dumbasses
I really wished that they had included Halbarad, the Dunedain, Elrohir and Elladan. They were missed out on, much like Imrahil of Dol Amroth, and I think that they would have been well received by fans who had only seen the movies. I remember that as a kid, reading even just their names in the books sparked my imagination-
In the books, Gondor sends the Red Arrow to call for the Rohirrim, it doesn't light beacons all the way to Edoras.
That's quite interesting that Peter Jackson changed more and more from the books per movie to me as of yet still being a movie-only fan (I've just recently started the first book).
Because I've always felt that the order they came out is also their order of greatness, the first being the best.
I am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Gimli is still in full armor. It's like he is expecting a fight no matter where he is.
Not giving the Palantir to Aragorn is another example of JP delaying Aragorns change from Strider to King Aragorn. Book : In Fellowship he has Narsil reforged. In Towers he openly proclaims himself to Eomer and displays Anduril. Here he claims the Palantir to later use it AND bent it to his will over Sauron thus knowing of the attack on the coast and counters it with the Grey Company showing his strategic ability. Plus he’s given the standard with seven stars and the tree, the standard of the High King of Arnor and Gondor. PJ removes all of this. I’m VERY grateful this movies were made and made well but these are errors IMHO.
I read the books over 30 years ago, and listened to the audiobooks about 25 years ago, and I remember going to the midnight showing of the premiere of The Fellowship of the Ring, and coming out disappointed. Disappointed at the plot changes, disappointed at the missing characters (no Tom Bombadil!) and disappointed with silliness like Frodo shyly asking Gandalf which way to go right after leaving Rivendell. But I did enjoy the movie, and wondered if I would have enjoyed it more if I didn’t know the books well. When Two Towers came out, I had a similar experience, but with less overall enjoyment, again due to awareness of what was changed from the books (and also annoyance at stupid choices Jackson made, like having mounted soldiers charge downhill on horseback! Why, Pter, why? There was no reason to film something so ridiculous) and, given my disappointment with Two Towers, I didn’t even bother to see Return of the King in the theater, I waited for the DVD.
Carefully watching this series over the past weeks, especially this one today, I have concluded that I was right, I would have been able to enjoy the movies much more if I hadn’t already been so familiar with the books. Similarly with Rings of Power on Prime, I get so caught up in all the details that they get completely wrong (especially overall timeline, and the forging of the rings) I really struggle to let go of what I know about the history of Middle Earth and just enjoy the show.
This series is really remarkable for how detailed the explanations go, without being boring or pedantic, and I think this had led me to a better understanding and appreciation of what Jackson was trying to do, so I’m thinking I might try watching all the extended edition DVDs (I have them laying around somewhere) and try to let go of worrying about the changes, and just enjoy the movies on their own terms.
The silliness of Frodo asking Right or Left when leaving Rivendell was not in the theatrical version but in the extended version :)
But I had the same disappointment as you describe when first watching the movies. Mainly due to the plot changes: Aragorn being afraid to become king, Gandalf fearing to go to Moria because there would be a Balrog there, Frodo solving the riddle of the Gates of Moria etc
"On second thought, let's not go to Edoras. 'Tis but is a silly place."
It’s just a model…
@@troubledjoe6201 shh!
22:59 I feel like you don’t understand Elrond. “as long as,” no. It’s fate that Aragorn becomes king, and is not motivation (at least as far as Arwin is concerned). Elrond is saying ‘my daughter is awesome, and won’t become mortal except to an awesome dude, you awesome dude.’ The closest thing he says eluding to disapproval is that he doesn’t want to talk about for a bunch of years, but I don’t think it’s implied that he’s upset about their relationship
Yes, we have A LOT of changes this week. And answering your question - the craziest one for me is that we didn't even start The Return of the King book yet. All of that is still happening in The Two Towers, and some things (for Aragorn and Arwen especially) were established in The Fellowship of the Ring.
What I think is a very important plot change is that in the movie, the Videocall of Sauron-Pippin through the Palantir ends violently with Aragorn taking the stone. This must have made Sauron understand that the Palantir was not in Isengard and Pippin was not imprisoned by Saruman.
The fact that Aragorn held the stone for 1 second, probably though was not enough for Sauron to see him as he truly was. When Pippin describes (in the book) his dialogue with Sauron, Sauron asked him who he was, he at first did not answer until it was impossible not to answer and he then said: a Hobbit. And then it seemed to him that Sauron saw him and he laughed. So, probably, the way Palantiri worked (or at least how they worked in the hands of Sauron), they needed some time until he could really see the other person using it.
I've nearly lost friends over these movies.
Friends: "We LOVE LotR!! These movies are GREAT!!" 😀
Me: "Yeah, they're good movies... but I really don't like the changes they made from the books." 🤔
Friends: "What do you mean? We read the books, and we thought they did a wonderful job." 😀
Me: "You read them? Do you actually remember what you read? Like, at ALL?" 🤨
Friends: "What? I didn't notice anything..." 🤔
Me: "Dude. Seriously. We could spend HOURS going over all the differences, but for a start, when in the movies did you hear anyone say: 'All that is gold does not glitter...'? ICONIC PLOT POINT, but there are PLENTY of others." 😐
No "Riddle of Strider," and Strider's not even carrying the "sword that was broken" when he meets Frodo. They omitted that entire bit, rewriting several scenes in a hokey attempt to fill the gap. How does anyone make a LotR movie and omit that?
When I watched the Jackson trilogy I felt like I was watching a jumbled up trailer of the book. They cut out half of the Fellowship part of the book. They cut up and cut out and changed all three of the sections of the book. Then they stuck in Jackson’s ideas of how the story should have gone.
Frodo was actually fifty years old by the time that they left the shire. They were small people but they were not all that young. They used a 19 year old kid to play Frodo. Pippin was the youngest of the four Hobbits but he was considered, by our way of aging, to be in his twenties. They were not considered to have “come of age” until they were thirty.
Almost the entire journey to the Prancing Pony was cut out of the movie. It made the basis of the story unexplained except for knowledge of a ring. I understand that parts had to be cut out but Jackson cut huge parts out only to write his own version of the story. Theoden King was not uncooperative. He listened to Gandalf. He was grateful for being delivered from Worm Tongue. Aragorn did not fall off a cliff. There were no elves at Helms Deep. It was ridiculous for them to put in a drinking party just a day after the many soldiers were massacred at Helms Deep as though no one cared that they lost their best friends. They made the dwarf look like a fool through the whole movie when he was really very valiant.
The character changes of the heroes were most disturbing to me. Making Aragorn into a whiny baby not wanting to accept his rightful place in history was ridiculous. Aragorn was 84 years old at the time of The Fellowship. He had been fighting against the enemy’s attacks for many years already. He had already had his “character ark.” Making Theoden into a whiny selfish cowardly King was inaccurate and was also unnecessary. Theoden was more than ready to offer his life to fight the enemy. Frodo did not spend all of his time whinnying either. He was determined right up to the end to complete his task although he did not believe that they would ever make it back home and he was tortured by the effects of the ring. The list of changes that Jackson made goes on and on. Christopher Tolkien found the movies an insult to his father’s work. He was disgusted with the movies because they had made his father’s book into an action movie which the book
certainly was not meant to be.
They did need to cut down the size of the movie but they did not have to add their own version of the story. They could have kept the spirit of the story but they wanted their version instead. Yes, it was a beautiful movie. Those who did costumes, the music, and scouted the places that they would shoot at did an excellent job. The massacre of the story was sickening. Of course, the movies did well. Most Americans do not read so they had no idea what the original story was about.
I recommend for everyone to read the book. If you don’t have time to sit down and read a book then get the audio version by Phil Dragash. It is excellent. (Also very close by.) Some only publish parts of the book so make sure you listen to the full version.
The voices of the characters sound much like the voices of the actors in the movies. Much of the music that was used in the movies is used throughout the audiobook as well. Find the true story that Tolkien wrote. It will keep you listening to the end….which is quite a few hours.
Aragorns and Arwens sons name is Eldarion
Speaking of Aragorn carrying Narsil around since they left Rivendell, he also carried the shards (or at least the broken hilt) around with him before that. They weren't just on display
I don’t mind Theoden taking a little time to decide to go to aid Minis Tirith. It adds a little bit of a character arc to him, and it helps to have that in a movie. That before the battle of Pelenor Fields, he wasn't sure if he was worthy to join his fathers in death. But after the decision, he poured his whole heart into defeating Sauron's forces and became worthy. In the books, most of the character development was offscreen. It's better if the development is on screen. Show, don't tell.
The whole palantir plot point is really important in the books. Gandalf explicitly says that Sauron will be confused for the next day or so as to what has happened to the ring and the hafling he presumed Saruman caught and advised them all to try 5o make the best of these hours. After Aragorn showed himself and was able to wrest control of it from Sauron, Sauron went into panic mode. He thought that Aragorn now had the ring and decided to attack Minas Tirith much sooner than he originally planned, before the king could return. It plays well into his belief that they would use the ring to challenge him and after his defeat at the pelennor fields, he is convinced that Aragorn has the ring.
So basically, Gandalf and then Aragorn tricked him to get his attention focused on themselves instead of Frodo and sam
Was the scene with the later re-forge and Elrond gifting it exclusive to the extended cuts? Because I remember telling my buddy in the theater that Aragorn had this 'magic sword', so to speak, way back in the Two Towers, or maybe at the end of Fellowship.
Now, I too, only have the extended versions, so it's hard to check, is why I ask.
One note here from the book, at first Sauron doesn't see it is Pippin in The Orthanc Stone but Saruman, asking him "Why haven't you been replying for so long?" THEN he realizes it's not him and says "Hey, who are you?!" before he exorsist Pippin to tell Saruman his message.
my senior year of highschool I was so exited for this movie I had been reading the books every year including the Silmarillion. I saw Peter Jackson say in a interview that he keep it word for word scene for scene from the books. As soon as they did not bother with The Old Forest, or Tom Bombadil I was done with thinking they were going to be faithful. Then each movie just got worse and worse with what was crucial details being left out. They made 3 Amazing action films but they were not the epic fantasy of Tolkien. Subsequently that is why Jackson got sued by the Tolkien Estate for the movies
It feels to me that where Tolkien viewed men as noble but easily corrupted, Jackson portrays men as weak and inevitably corrupted and that without elves and wizards men would be doomed. A lot of the early small changes that snowballed in the end seem to be focused on how weak men are. I'd be afraid to see what Jackson would do with a sequel.
In the Actors Commentary, Billy Boyd revealed, origincally, there was going to a be shot of Pippin inside of the Palantír when an asteral projection of himself is surrounded by flames, being psychically and magically tortured by Sauron. Though his part was filmed in front of a bluescreen, the effects were never done as this bit was cut from the movie.
They cut Elrond's sons and the Dunédain because as screenwriter Philipa Boyens have stated both in The Two Towers and Return of the King commentaries, you can't introduce any more smaller characters so late in the story (of all three films, it's meant as one big story like Tolkien considered The Lord of the Rings to be ONE book and not three) plus finding actors for the elves is really hard as they need to look like the hottest people on Earth without look modern super models with unnaturally slender waist and big lips. Not many people are like that, even among celebs (which Jackson wasn't to keen to use unless they fit the roles, hence why he didn't audition the likes of Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson), so finding elf actors is a real hell.
The reason that they to cut unimportant characters from the movies are because you don't want to waste screentime on those characters who just appears only in one scene and are never heard of again, since screentime is precious (no pun intended) and dragging the movie for too long would bore those who haven't read the books. Plus, if you want characters to have significance, you ahve to introduce them as early as possible to justify their apperance and screentime, just to introduce Elrond's sons and the Dunédain this late and having very little significance to the plot with no real introduction is like how Bard was introduced just suddenly in The Hobbit book, that's why he was introduced earlier in the story and gave him more significance to the plot in the movies. I man, imagine that you DID have Elrond's sons or the Dunédain in the movies, you'd see why that wouldn't work, neither with Prince Imrahil, Quickbeam, Glorfindel, Radagast (though he does appear in The Hobbit tirlogy), Erkenbrand, Beregond, Bregil, the list goes on.
Something that has stuck with me for the last ~20 years was something Phillipa said, paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly: If you follow things back you'll see that these changes were necessary because of things that came before them.
Of course doing what she said I found it was mostly because of unnecessary changes they made for some reason.
p.s. Hope you're doing the best you can after last week.
Yea exactly. Seems to be a necessity but only because of changes they chose to make early on…
And thank you! Doing better this week
@@factorfantasyweekly Good to hear.
@Welverin honestly it really annoys me when people excuse a lot of the unnecessary changes because "they had to adapt it for a film". I think they did a great job but the LOTR would not be that hard to make a 1 for 1 movie series that follows the books. Literally the only changes that probably were necessary were the omissions of Tom bombadil and of the scouring of the shire and those could both be in the extended editions.
In the movie Sauron doesn’t recognize Aragorn as the heir. Sauron realizes who he is when he reveals the sword.
While the Eowyn scene was made up for the movie, her dream about The Great Wave washing though the landscape, is in the book but it was Faramir who had this dream in the book (which Boromir tells about in The Council of Elrond). The reason it was shifted over to Eowyn was because Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philpa Boyens couldn't find a way to use it for Faramir for the movie but they could with Eowyn, hence why it is in the movie.
The dream by the way was something that J.R.R: Tolkien had as a child, about a dream coming in and flooding the lands, similiar to how Atlantis sunk to the sea. This inspired him later in life the story about the island of Númenor where Aragorn's ancestors and most of the people of Gondor. In the later part of Second Age after he forged The One RIng, failed to get the Elven Rings but got the others which he gave to the nine men (who'd become the Ringwraiths) and the dwarves, The Númenorean army surrounded him in Mordor, he surrendered himself in the beautiful form of Annatar and was imprisoned there. He was released but through hard work he became King Ar-Phârazon's advisor and he convinced him to send a fleet to Valinor to steal immortality from the Valar. He did but as men were forbidden to go there and broke their promise, Eru Illuvatar, the creation god, parted the sea and the whole fleet with the king sunk inside in a cavern underneath the earth to be stuck there to the end of time, and sent a wave which flooded Númenor and killed Saruon's physical form, which prevented him from taking on a handsome form ever again. The men that were faithful to the Valar and elves, including Elendil, Isildur and Anarion, managed to escape in time and formed the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor, setting the events of The Battle of Last Alliance as seen in the prolouge of Fellowship of the Ring.
I started reading the book after I watched the first movie, but I didn't finish it.
But Arwen's vision really irritated me like mad. It felt so out pf place.
Theoden not wanting to help also puzzled me.
Ah, yes: Dunwatching. An alternative name for Orthanc.
I’ve always been furious about the scene where Arwen decides to stay because she has a vision of her son. Arwen and Aragorn had a number of daughters too, but apparently they weren’t enough for Arwen (or the movie makers) to care about.
As far as movie Aragorn goes… Saruman didn’t believe that Aragorn was anything other than a Ranger and even said something about Gandalf thinking he found the heir and how that was ridiculous since “that line was broken”.
So why would Sauron think differently? The initial touch would have just been some rando. And I think actually sets up really well for Aragorn later to be like “hey b*tch. It’s actually me.”
As for the rest of this video, I appreciate hearing the differences between the two and it makes it interesting knowing how the movies were pieced together
I would like to gently remind everyone that adaptations from books to movies aren’t easy.
It’s absolutely valid to be disappointed when a movie doesn’t match the book. But please remember that you can’t put the experience of reading a book into a visual media like that. Especially with the detail of Tolkien.
“Adaptation” is an important description. I understand wanting to see everything you imagined on the big screen. But it just doesn’t work like that… even if it were a tv series instead.
Yes, obviously you can have a fantastic film trilogy without it being accurate to the source material. No one is arguing against that. It's a bit weak and disingenuous to use that as a defense for some of these things, in my opinion. I enjoy the movies as well, but the older I get, the more I think that was JRR Tolkiens true legacy was, ultimately, his real contribution was a manuscript against nihilism, despair, and the spirit of the age. Peter Jackson's movies worked because at the end of the day, he was trying to tell a hero's story, he wasn't a nihilist (what makes the trilogy different than Amazon's abhorrent subversion) but that spirit of the age is still in there, infecting things. Its sad to see this kind of thinking, this disdain for humanity, this shitty greywash of like, oh well no one is really good - aragorn doesnt want to be king, and umm, let's make frodo a little cry baby and denethor is this insane little man child, faramir cannot refuse the Ring, etc. Oh and also let's make everything a classic blockbuster action moment, clichés an everything, let's have absolutely no shame and infuse every moment with tension and physicality - when we're not doing the aragorn/arwen soap opera telepathy stuff.
If there's any defense for Peter Jackson's loose handling of the source material, honestly - Hollywood. We're lucky these movies were even made. Lord of the Rings is too wholesome and based, it's too good. It begets too much virtue for greasy Hollywood executives and producers to get behind. This was as close as it ever could have gotten. If it were made even just a few years later, I'm sure it could have been a lot worse. So yeah, all this to say, just read the books. That's my opinion. We should all be trying to get offline and away from screens anyway. If social media - and honestly, Hollywood as a whole, and all that it is and represents - existed in the Lord of the Rings, would that be something found among the Wise, among the blissful Shirefolk, or would that be a device of Sauron, a foul craft of the enemy, a rift created by Morgoth. So yeah, just read the books. My 2 cents.
I think Aragorn was able to confront Sauron later in the movie because he had Anduril, where as in Isengard, he didn't. Though you know, he should have had Anduril since Rivendell lol
With regard to Legolas sensing Sauron in the Palantir, I believe elves existed in both the physical and the spiritual realm. so while he may not have had the power to see spirits like Galadriel or Glorfindel could, he would still be aware of such a powerful presence nearby (despite really being asleep at that time)
WHOIOHOOOO LETS GOOOOO, can we do the hobbit after the LOTR?? Your analysis is awesome man
Woohoooo! You’re awesome 🫡
I think I’ll try the Hobbit next. No idea how it’ll go since it’s pretty much completely different. But we’ll try 😂
@factorfantasyweekly any chance of trying to do it as a Hobbit plus expanded tolkein lore vid?
Yea not sure if it’ll just be a generic video like that or an actual Movies vs Manuscripts. But perhaps it could be like that
@@factorfantasyweekly It's a lot like this, starts out fairly faithful and veers off the farther it goes. Albeit, far more extreme.
@@factorfantasyweeklyThings will be ok-ish if you include appendix stories in Tolkien’s works (there is a lot of padding in the movies of course), until the dwarves split. Then character changes are permanently “love triangle and injury ruined the characters, all dwarves went to the Lonely Mountain”.
I totally understand needing to make thematic changes to the movies for the sake of time, character economy, or to allow the inclusion of plots not necessarily seen in the books.
The inclusion of the Arwen romance is one of those. Since that plot was really only seen in the appendices including it in the movies required some major deviations.
Some changes, however, don’t seem to make any sense whatsoever.
My biggest issue was always their changing Aragorn. His disinterest in his kingship or heritage. Not carrying Narsil, and constantly dismissing discussions of him being the rightful king.
That is so completely at odds with the character as written as to be incomprehensible.
Actually in the books even up to the return of the king Aragon doesn't want people to call him king and won't sit the throne of Gondor until after Sauron is defeated. So not totally against his character.
@ but he never denied his birthright or indicated a reluctance to be king. Only the time and circumstances.
Originally Pippin was just going to take The Palantír from Gandalf but Billy Boyd suggested to Peter Jackson to use a jug to replace it Indiana Jones-style. He said to Boyd "We can't use that, It's too small, it's not hobbit scale.". It turns out however that Weta Workshop did the jug in hobbit scale (a third bigger than it'd be for a human size prop, since hobbits are a third the size of a human) just in case. How fortunatley this happy accident happened as it'd mean another change to the list if it wasn't (of course the change to the mug makes more sense as a random rock wouldn't have made sense to have inside of the bedroom at Edoras) and every little homage satisfies the fans.
The cutting of the grey company is a huge shame, I think.
But seeing as Jackson cut any reference to Anarion, to the reason for the contested lineage of Gondor, to The kingdom of Arnor at all, - I understand why he wouldn't bother with all these extra people, just to show that Aragorn was already a chief of the remnants of the Northern Dunedain.
But, if they hadn't added in all that 45 minutes of non canon filler in the previous film, they definitely could have fit them in.
Really, most of the biggest changes in the trilogy came down to where they wanted the second film to end.
In JP version the short time Aragorn held the Palantir may not have been enough time for Sauron to read any of Aragorns mind or realize who he is plus Sauron would’ve been laser focused on “hobbit = RING” rather than who just cut the connection. Lastly in using a Palantir the physical orientation is relevant so perhaps Aragorn wasn’t oriented correctly for Sauron to talk to him or see him? That last is very nitpicking.
It is my understanding from In Deep Geek that a palantir doesn’t just work. You have to hold it while facing the other stone to make a connection.
So if Aragorn wasn’t facing Mordor when he grabbed the stone after Pippin, there would have been no connection.
That depends on the palantir.
The three "lesser" stones in the southern gondor (Orthanc, minas anor (tirith) and Minas ithil (morgul)) work exactly like that.
The stone of Elendil in the tower hills only looks back to the outermost west. The other two stones of the north that were lost with Arvedui (formerly of Amon sul and Anuminas i belive) probably worked like that too, but i don't think Tolkien said for certain.
The master stone (in Osgiliath) worked in any direction, and could listen in to any other stones... but it was lost in the kinstrife.
@ Ok so the theory still works as they were using the Orthanc stone.
Good information. Thank you.
You're exactly right in what you said, although you did sound a bit more hostile this week, lol. I am reading the books again right now and am almost in the same exact spot as this video. As I said before, when I read the books now, I visualize the actors and voices from the films, so in my head, it's like I'm watching the movies, but entirely lore accurate. 😂
Correction, it's Eowyn who grabs Aragorn's hand, not the other way around.
where do we learn most of this stuff on Aragorn and Arwen's relationship? Because Arwen is barely a character in the books so as I have heard.
Is it from the appendices or from Tolkin's letters?
Both. But the appendices contain a decent amount of info.
@@factorfantasyweeklyI thought it was most likely the appendix. Though it’s interesting to know that Tolkien’s letters also had some details.
Most likely stuff he couldn’t fit in or had not thought about yet. Since Tolkien never stopped creating until his death.
What surprised me while reading the Return of the king was what Aragorn said to Eowin before heading to the path of dead. Word to word what Wormtongue said to Eowin in Two towers.
Yea haha interesting line swap
8:52 Come again? No Rivendell scene is unnecessary. The Arwen/Rivendell scene was mental respite from all the grime.
I think in the movies, Sauron doesn't know who Aragorn is the first time he touches the Palantir. For all he knows it's some random guy. Later on Aragorn explicitly reveals himself as Isildur's heir and shows himself to be in possession of Andúril.
But yeah, confusing.
There are too many changes that stray too far from the book
It's why the book is superior. Which is a bummer, because Return of the King is my favorite book of the trilogy.
You never even read the book. You simply listened to the audiobook when it became available online. The one that has the music from the movies !
In this instance, Aragorn pokes Sauron in his great eye, Stooges-style.
Part of me would like to ask for the Witcher, but the series doesn’t matter…
Great video as usual! I look forward to each of your release!!
Aragorn doesn't reveal himself to Sauron in this scene because, in the movie adaptation, he still doesn't have Narsil reforged with him.
Ok...it wasnt accurate...but was it a good story? Was it entertaining?
Tangential question: If any blade that cut the Witch King must perish, why didn't Narsil melt away when it cut off the finger of Sauron? Was Narsil just THAT MUCH better than any Numenorean blade?
Narsil was created by one of the greatest smiths who ever lived in Middle Earth, named Telchar. It's not a Numenorean blade at all.
@@headrockbeats Yes, but if it has any magical properties at all, they never seem to have been mentioned. If Strider knew that the shards of Narsil could hurt the Witch King without suffering damage, maybe he should have used one of those. Half a sword is still better than a burning stick.
@@headrockbeats Oh, and I never said Narsil was a Numenorean blade. On the contrary, I explicitly asked if it is THAT MUCH BETTER than ANY Nemenorean blade -- aside from being part of the Gondorian regalia.
@@christosvoskresye No magical properties are ever mentioned. But I don't think I agree about the burning stick; Half a sword - even an ancient, magical sword - is almost useless. Besides, I don't think that's even a consideration at that particular point in the story. He's surrounded by Nazgul and needs a way to drive them off.
@@headrockbeats Half of Narsil is probably better than any "sword" ever wielded by a hobbit ... which, I'll concede, still makes it less than half as useful as if it were whole. Also, at this point the Nazgul were still shockingly timid and did not really press their advantage, though it is unfair to expect him to have known that.
Maybe a better reason is not what would happen to the sword, but what would have happened to him. I suppose that even if the sword survived, he would have taken the shock that Merry and Eowyn did, and the hobbits would have been truly helpless at that point. But then, their situation was practically hopeless already.
13:08 until he reveals Anduril he’s just a dude, any dude.
sounds as complicated as the story of Lucifer that is told cause it is pulled from every book of the Bible when in truth it is only in Isaiah 14:4-24 saying he is "King of Babylon" and "brought down to hell" and chained "to the sides of the pit" not chained to the bottom of the pit where Satan even the Devil will be.
You mean... No hairy women!? 😢
ahh He saw Arragon in the palantir but did not know who he was. That came later.
Arwen's vision of her son is, of course, completely absent from Tolkien. Yet of all the changes, this is the one I think Tolkien would most like. Having Arwen choose to live and die as a human not because of romantic love but because of mother's love fits well with Tolkien's Catholicism, and it frankly fills in an aspect largely missing from his books. Lobelia Sackville-Baggins should not be the most prominent example of a loving mother.
Then from the same Catholic perspective, why did Jackson make Arwen an arrogant warrior instead of the guardian of the home that she is in the books?
@@jige1225 Tolkien was visibly Catholic. I have no idea what Jackson's religion is.
👍
I just can not get over the constant mispronunciation of "Palantiri". There's an "i" at the end. It makes an "ey" sound. "Pal - an - tear - ey".
"Palantir" is a software company.
Please highlight this comment in your next video to spread the word.
The company is named after the object in the books the “i” at the end refers to more than one the whole lot of them not just 1.
I’m not saying I disagree with you… but I am saying that Tolkien literally named the chapter “The Palantir”…
Palantiri is the plural, since there were many.
He did a bad job on those movies