One line added that wasn’t in the books is “I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king.” That felt so much like Tolkien to me. It brought beautiful closure and impact for Boromir’s death.
One of the most touching additions to the dialogue was when Bernard Hill as King Theoden "No parent should have to bury their child". It's so simple, and it devastates me every time
I always found the language slightly off for some reason. If that line had to be in I would have preferred more precise words such as 'No father should have to bury his son.' 'Or no father should have to bury his daughter' (if it had been a daughter) - would have been better.
Théoden is my favorite character. Such tragedy he has to carry around with him, and so much doubt in himself and the chances of his people. I feel Aragorn & Théoden did a lot to pull each other up from their own fears and uncertainties. Bernard Hill was remarkable and powerful in that role.
@@colinclark1396 I like that he said "child", as it means he's not merely grieving for himself, but as a King for all the slain children in his kingdom since Saruman's forces invaded it. He's showing empathy, concern, and lordship as he rightly should.
I'm surprised to see no comments talking about, arguably, the best addition to any book-adapted film: "I would have followed you my brother. My captain. My King."
To be fair, Boromir is probably the character that benefited the most of the adaptation. In the book, Boromir is a lot less developped and "altruistic" ; he is mostly a way to show that the ring's power is especially potent on power-hungry people (even with good intentions). The movie adds a lot of scenes showing both Boromir's compassion for mankind, his family, the halflings, etc. But also a sense of urgency, the idea that his people are in imminent danger without him.
One other change that Jackson made was at the very end, when the four hobbits are sitting in the local tavern in Hobbiton. The usual hubbub is going on all around them; and the four just look at each other: the know that the other hobbits could not possibly understand what they'd been through. My son who saw combat in Iraq told me that that is his favorite scene in the film, because it perfectly describes how veterans feel after they return home, knowing that the people they know and love cannot possibly understand what they've gone through. Brief as it is, it's a powerful scene that brings enormous depth to the movie.
Fantastic description! I too am a veteran; my first conflict was Grenada, but I continued to serve, with a short break from 2000 to 2002. Four deployments post September 11th 2001, totaling more than 5 years in combat... I too very much appreciate that particular scene. God Bless your son, and all other veterans!
Informed perhaps by Tolkien being a veteran - a veteran of battles more horrific than any seen prior to WWI. Battles in which he lost most of his childhood friends. You have to live it to know it and to write about it.
You've got four guys who practically went through hell and back to save the world, and the pub is going mad for the bloke who grew a big pumpkin. I imagined this was a comment on what it must have been like to return to your small town or village after coming home from WW1
What I think is interesting is to compare Tolkien and his writings to Jackson and his movies. Tolkien fought in a war that hit his homeland hard, he came home yet the war was still there, its effects still staining the land. That is reflected in the book's ending in the Scouring of the Shire. Compare this to Jackson, a Kiwi, whose homeland has sent boys to various wars and seen action, but those wars have never found their way to New Zealand, resulting in, as you mention, the folks at home unable to understand what you went through. This is reflected in the movie's peaceful ending, where the other hobbits are their usual selves in the tavern yet our heroic four can only just sadly smile to each other while in the middle of all the merry-making because they can relate to only each other any more.
I feel like the adding of reluctance to Aragorn's character arc probably reflects the difference between the modern attitude towards what makes a 'perfect' king, compared to the ideals Tolkien grew up with, or studied in history.
Yeah, today we're clearly uncomfortable with the idea that some people are simply entitled to ruling because of their blood. Meanwhile, Tolkien was an unabashed monarchist and superior bloodlines appear all over his work. It's no wonder a modern adaptation tries to lean into "the best people to lead are the ones who don't desire to lead" to soften that.
I wonder how modern this really is. There's a quote about this from Dumbledore, in which he suggests "those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it". From the time when Tolkien was alive, there's King George VI, a reluctant king of the British Empire.
@@ImVeryOriginal Tolkien understood the danger of giving power to people who were not brought up to wield it and a simple look at recent (and especially not so recent) history is pretty good indication that he was right. monarchs don't tend to be good leaders because of their bloodline, but because they were raised to be monarchs and taught to wield power responsibly. next point is that even if a monarch turns out to be a tyrant, that is still only the greed of one tyrant that needs to be satisfied. another huge advantage about a monarchy is that, if the monarch does fail their people, it usually only takes the brutal slaying of one individual to enact change because their successor will think twice about repeating the mistakes of a lynched predecessor. lastly a monarch doesn't need to appeal to lobbyists to ensure they'll be able to continue a life of opulence once they're ousted from their elected position. as opposed to a political system where the greed of an entire ruling party made up of individuals who have no bloody idea about how to wield power responsibly needs to be satisfied and where the death of one member of said party will change absolutely nothing about it.
About Faramir, I also think we're just not interested in "perfect" characters anymore. To modern audiences (or at least to me) being tempted by the chance to earn everything he's ever wanted and then choosing not to at the last moment is far more heroic than never being tempted in the first place. It's also a nice parallel having him and Boromir tempted in the same way and showing that-despite what everyone thinks-when it matters most, he's the stronger of the two.
Faramir is interesting, because not being tempted by the Ring at all can be seen as imperfect itself: he's basically saying, "sure, I could use the Ring to save the people dying right now, but then I might enslave them or worse later, and that would be even worse." The only way to justify that is faith; for Faramir and his men to have truly no fear of death, and thus, no need of the Ring's power. There's nothing wrong with that from a narrative point of view, since Gandalf is basically an angel and thus objective proof of divinity, but that also greatly cheapens their bravery compared to someone in the same circumstances in the real world.
Your idea of the voice of Tolkien himself reading about the Rohirrim's charge, while we see the charge scenes from the movie, is the best moment of this video.
@@HandGrenadeDivisionBernard Hill is ofcourse the better actor. But Tolkien delivering it himself from the best moment of the book(though I do prefer the moment before of "Rohan had come at last") is something super special.
@@HandGrenadeDivisiontolkien also sounded more like the radio announcers from the old days. With his cadence and pace of speaking. Makes sense given the time period he lived. Bernard Hill's performance was absolutely magnificent
Honestly I like that Aragorn isn’t a perfect man in the movies, him being flawed and having emotional turmoil makes him more human (the very thing he’s running away from lol). I also think that, in turn, it presents him as an even more perfect king. A king who rules from a place of duty and necessity rather than pride and ambition.
Also,he had to work to become a king.His people trusted him way before he started to wear a crown,which is very important for the character and the plot.That's why Rohan soldiers were following him even they ,for ages,didn't like and trust Gondor.
I think Aragorn is not much less nuanced in the books, especially in the Appendices. He has doubts and fears and must accept heroically what is almost certainly a doomed quest and struggles with uncertainty about what decision to make or path to take. And this is a man nearly 100 years old, who spent decades traveling the world and fighting in Rohan and Gondor against their enemies. His journey was not easy. He didn't always know what to do. But he did his best and would continue to do so even when it seemed hopeless to do so.
Agreed. While the character beats are different, the emotional resonance for the audience is the same. Back in the day, someone thinking they should be king because they were born to it would be interpreted by the audience as nobility. Nowdays, that's conceit and scheming. We find it more noble if someone feels obliged to be king because they were born to it. The character detail is different, but it ends up at the same place in the esteem of the audience: nobility.
One thing that works well about the movies changes to Aragorn and Faramir is that, rather than being noble from the start, we see them overcome their self doubt and temptation, respectively. It speaks to the idea of growing a stronger moral character in the face of adversity. A fitting moral for an audience of teenagers.
I'm guessing in 87 years there was probably a time of doubt that Aragon had. But in the books, he had a hate-b0ner for Sauron and was eager to win Gondor back.
One thing I noticed from Peter Jackson making the LOTR movies as well as Denis Villeneuve making Dune was they always deferred to the authors. They thought themselves as people adapting Tolkien or Herbert’s work the big screen, not them trying to put “their mark” or “their spin” on the story. So even when changes were made, they remained true to the spirit of the source material.
Agreed. Even with some of the more significant changes regarding Dune, Villeneuve saw it as a way to realize the themes Herbert was writing rather than purely his own ideas.
@@Rauruatreides Yup. The directors were just translating the work to a different medium. This is in contrast to many other adaptations where the director or showrunner thinks they know better than the source material and therefore tries to make "their mark" on adaptation. And that usually leads to disaster.
@@transformersrevenge9 No adaptation can please everyone unfortunately. All I can say is that my geezer dad who read the book as a teenager loved it and so did I. I thought they were very spiritually and aesthetically faithful.
@@transformersrevenge9 I am a fan of Frank Herbert's Dune saga as well, and I think Villeneuve's movies are great. I think they mostly focused on the right things, given that most of the side plots of the first book don't end up being that pertinent in the long run. The moody "fatedness" heightens some of the actual big themes (Paul's "terrible purpose", "Nietzsche goes to space"). I think they could have done without Chani slinking off into the desert by herself, and I'm a little worried about how they'll tie her back into the story for Dune Messiah, but we'll just have to wait and see.
I actually like the changes made to Faramir. Seeing how he’s been treated by his father, it’s only natural his instinct would be to seek his approval. And it doesn’t diminishes him as a hero in my opinion, because we’ve seen with Isildur, Smeagul and Boromir, just how easily the ring can corrupt. So Faramir struggling and overcoming the temptation is very heroic of him.
This!!! Book Faramir might not be tempted by the ring, but movie Faramir faces that temptation and is still one of the few on-screen characters to overcome it. It works well in the context of the films, if you're open to the chanage
I loved that.He was tempered not to reclaim the ring for himself,but for his father..and that was also before he saw with his own eyes what the ring is doing to Frodo.I actually loved every changes that Jackson and his team have made.I also loved his changes to Frodo.Being stabbed by morgul blade,there is no way he could ride a big horse(that he never did before)for six days by himself.It was more natural to be carried by an elf,who are by nature the best riders.
There is the idea that Faramir is supposed to represent humility and virtue, instead of simply be another person that fell and has redeem themselves. Faramir was not tempted by the ring because he is humble enough not to engage in a battle of will with the ring, knowing he will lose. He doesn't even let himself consider using the ring. He is meant as an example of a person who doesn't fall. Of a person that didn't make this specific mistake. Of the idea that you don't always have to make a mistake and then make up for it.
@@NoName-mi8js I'm much less gracious towards book-Faramir once you discover that he's the character Tolkien self-identified as. He's basically Tolkien's self-insert, which makes his irreproachable virtue leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. I choose to believe that Tolkien didn't *intentionally* write him to be "better than you" because he believed himself to be morally superior - but it's hard to separate the two. Even if it were my best friend who wrote a book and told me he based this moral paragon character on himself, I'd have stern words. The changes to movie-Faramir are great, and in the end, he still makes the right choice - the choice that his brother, the righteous and valorous Boromir could not. He still chooses what's right over his own longing and hope for the one singular thing he wants most: his father's love.
faramirs desire for the ring also holds a strong note of wanting to be more like his brother. hes not only in it for "power, glory, weapon, mwahaha", hes also in it to live up to his golden boy brother earn his fathers love for once.
I'd argue that the scouring of the shire fits the books theme of war touching everything, something Tolkien no doubt took from his own experiences. While the movies theme is closer to war heroes returning home with no one understanding what they went through, more akin to modern soldiers, and fitting the films theme of unity and hope overcoming tyranny to protect innocence.
I find it unnecessary to add that scene in the movies because the heroes have already went through enough in a lifetime. And suddenly adding a new plot point near the end of the movie I think was going to make the audience groan at the reappearance of Saruman and Grima. I kind of like how they ended the two of them at the towers showdown.
I think Grima's lines to Eowyn really work because it shows the level of manipulation he is capable of, he looks the way he does but can still get Eowyn almost giving in because he knows her and what is really going on with her and can worm his way in.
@1047online He truly did. I remember watching him work and thinking: "Wormtongue truly is a vile bastard!" It takes a special kind of talent to pull off the personality of a vile bastard, too.
One of my favorite scenes in the entire film series! Both of them give amazing performances here. Miranda Otto really conveys Eowyn’s depths of despair and shows that oh-so-brief second of “Maybe I should listen to him? I have nothing else…” before she rejects him utterly. He is left staring at the hand that was able to caress her face for the only time.
Peter Jackson's genius is that he stayed as true to the original text as possible, and also used the two artists who best visualized Lord of the Rings to date (John Howe and Alan Lee) very effectively. That's why this film is more beautiful and artistic than today’s productions, even though technology is very advanced right now.
And give every character the arc,because,nobody stays the same after going through some life changing moment.Aragorn,in the book was boring to me.There he slways wanted to be king and acted as one.In reallity,he wasn't king..he was a refugee for almost 90 years,so he had to learn how to become a king,like in the movie.
@@barneyboy2008and you, my friend are, another expert of Tolkien, I assume.I wonder only if you have studded him at the University in England or just a self-proclaimed one.
Honestly, if the books were made into movies verbatim, I fear they would not engage any but the most hardened Tolkien aficionados. Would that be a bad thing? No, of course not, but his books have reached even more people with the movies, and our love for his world has multiplied. I can live with that (and I loved the books and the movies).
yes, people fall asleep to lotr movies and say they're boring as they are now, if they were closer to the books they'd stand no chance. Besides, Tolkien isn't a perfect writer, its not the worst thing in the world to make changes imo
Considering the return on investment is important for the investor. If it would have been too long, that would also have cost much more and lesser people watching it, was too risky for sure. It was already a risk and very unusual for the film industry, the way they did it.
Well, that begs the question. Do we just make art now to satisfy the lowest common denominator or do we make art to express our selves and our minds? Tolkien's books are so highly regarded because he made what HE wanted, he wrote the stories HE wanted to tell. He certainly didn't do it to please any specific demographic, I don't believe. And that goes for all great works of art. So, if we're now only making films to engage the most populated demographic is there even a point anymore in making them?
@@jase276 Good question. I know there are a lot of people who only like art (any form of art) as long as it isn't mainstream. Perhaps because they feel it isn't actually good art if it is valued by many, maybe because they are snobs, or maybe they just think art needs to be interpreted by people who know what art is? I can't say what is right, but you are right that he made it because he wanted to. However, it was also an attempt to make something similar to The Kalevala but for Britain (as far as I know). This suggests he wanted people to actually read it. Why publish it if not? He probably would not have liked the movies, and I do get why some people do not. It is a matter of taste and principles too.
If the movies were made for Tolkien aficionados then I would have watched them more than twice over the past 20 years. I can’t even get through them on airplanes they’re so bad. And the LOTR books were massive sellers before the movies; the people who they were meant found them somehow.
Excellent job. You expressed something really subtle but important which took my breath away with "Great stories are worth preserving in some way because they have something important to say ... [nowadays] more common is the belief that old stories need to be *fixed* or to just see them as IP that can serve as a springboard for new and better ideas." I reckon this describes a huge but unconscious trend in movie-making and sequel-making. It sheds light on the awkward self-consciousness and cynicism dominating many blockbusters.
You are correct except for the fact that the trend is not unconscious but very much wanted. They are ushering in a new era of social and moral norms you may just not fully realize it yet.
There is also a great rejection to have sincere storytelling since studios fear they might come off as corny. Comic Book movies are the greatest offenders in this aspect, doing the impossible to have a character in every scene pointing out how silly some of the concepts are.
In the book, Gandalf was pained rejecting the ring when Frodo offered it to him but did reject it. Galadriel also was able to reject it but with more obvious temptation than in the books. Boromir failed in the face of temptation in both the movies and the books and whereas Aragorn succeeded in both. Then in the books Faramir casually rejected it. It made everyone else's temptation a greater weakness. I liked that Faramir had to fight it to and made his victory all the greater. Remember in both the movies and the books Frodo ultimately failed.
Agreed. One point that I don't think is brought up often enough is that Book-Faramir resisted the temptation of the One Ring more easily than Movie-Aragorn. Of course Movie-Faramir couldn't have been quite as strong as Movie-Aragorn, let alone stronger.
Agree. I felt that Tolkien's Faramir was kind of a "Mary Sue" type character. He was too perfect in the face of temptation. Jackson gave Faramir a plausible emotional reason why he would be tempted by the Ring. Faramir wanted the respect and love of his father, who clearly favored Boromir, his eldest son, over Faramir, his youngest son. The audience could relate to that temptation and feel empathy for Faramir. When Faramir releases Frodo to continue his quest, you could feel that Faramir "passed" his test of temptation, just like Galadriel did hers. All in all, Jackson's Faramir kept the tension with the Ring as a source of temptation that had to be destroyed and moved the plot forward.
@@tmbarton1961Book-Aragorn too is almost too perfect. And I, though a Tolkien fan for many years, appreciated the way the movies gave him and arch and a more compelling motivation than "I have to become king if I want to get the girl". BUT I never suffered the changes they made to Faramir, and NOT because they made him more prone to temptation: people seem not understand that it's not that the problem, but the way he behaves: rude, ruthless, even brutal with Gollum. He doesn't have nothing of the honorable man we meet in the books. They had Galadriel tempted way more than in the books, but she was still the noble and mysterious lady she is in the books; they could have done the same for Faramir.
@@Laurelin70 I didn't have a problem with the way Jackson's Faramir treated Gollum. Gollum violated one of their laws and he resisted arrest. In the books, Aragorn wanted to kill Gollum after Gandalf had finished interrogating him. Gandalf rejected that because he felt that Gollum may have a purpose in the fate of the Ring.
@@tmbarton1961 Especially since they didnt know who or what Gollum is and if he told Sauron or any orcs how to get to the secret base it would be a massive blow to Gondor's operations.
This movie is packed with emotion, we see this everytime, when Frodo speaks to his friends, the way Aragorn treats frodo with care and respect, the way Gandalf talks to the hobits as a parent trying to give his kids a lesson.
The books are SO detailed and lore-packed that frankly I'm amazed that, after so much had to be condensed and cut away, the trilogy still turned out to be a masterpiece very much in-keeping with the spirit of Lord of the Rings. There aren't many movies that I return to time and again, but I do a yearly watch of LOTR.
I also think that Faramir was changed because of a themes of the Two Towers. It's the movie that clearly asks if there is any hope left for the World of Men. Either for their Kings, their peasants (that's why they are called to War), and their Heroes. It's the movie where Aragorn embraces the World of Men, and that shows him that men aren't weak as he thougth. Faramir resisting the ring *in the end* after the battle of Hornburg makes sense as a conclusion. We showed you: men Can resist the evil or Saruman, but to the Ring too in the end. Hope lives. That's why I am ok with Faramir's character in the movies
Agree. Faramir was still portrayed as a noble man by Jackson, but in the movies, Jackson, saw what Tolkein did not see, Faramir as a son who wanted the love of his father, a father who was angry about losing his eldest son, Boromir. In the book, Tolkien tells us why Denethor distrusted Faramir. Faramir was educated by Gandalf and Denethor did not trust Gandalf. To keep the suspense strong about the temptations of the Ring, Jackson made the right call for Faramir to be tempted to take the Ring to his father so that he could gain his father's love and trust. That's a powerful emotion that the Ring would plausibly exploit.
@@tmbarton1961 I made this comment on another post, but Tolkien, being a Classics scholar probably made his heroes more Homeric than modern: one-note and unchanging, heroic for their unflinching resolve and unflappable fortitude. That kind of character is dramatic but not 3-dimensional. So I think Tolkien didn't bother to analyze the psyches of his characters or maybe even bother with Campbell or Jung's theses (he probably would've rejected them entirely had he done so), whereas Jackson did. I think that's why the film versions stand out all these years later: we can see where they're coming from because Jackson gave them the nuance that Tolkien didn't.
Changing Faramir does generally fit with the movies' efforts to make the characters more human and 3-dimensional, but I'm still not a huge fan of it. Faramir's arc ended being about the same as Boromir's: trying to take the Ring, then regretting/rethinking it at some point. The main difference is that Faramir lived. Otherwise it's hard for me to see the difference. To be fair, Faramir is always in someone's shadow. In the books, he was basically Aragorn-lite. In the movies, he's Boromir-lite. He kind of struggles to stand out as his own character, I think.
@@LittleMezzoBird I prefer to think of film!Faramir as being a better Boromir. Maybe not a better warrior, (though he's formidable enough it his own right, as his men are completely committed to him,) but a better person in general, capable of the kind of hope that was a central theme of the entire series.
@@thing_under_the_stairsIn the books I see him as the better Boromir. In the movies it was lost on me. It didn't made him more 3 dimensional for me, I just couldn't understand his decisions at all. I think I watched the movies more times than I read the books now and I'm still just confused what the extra scenes with Sam, Frodo and Faramir are supposed to tell me. It's one of the few things I don't like about the movies.
@@MemphisFloyd John Connor, Luke Skywalker, and Indiana Jones are the biggest and most famous examples that come to mind. John's example is perhaps the worst of the three, in my opinion. In the first five films (and the TV show), John was the most important character, the one everyone is either trying to protect or kill. He was the literal savior of the human race, the one destined to stop Skynet and guide humanity to a new age of peace. Yet, in 'Dark Fate,' the film literally murders him in the first two minutes so a woman can take his place to fight against an enemy that's just Skynet with a new coat of paint. It would have been better to show a middle-aged John trying to find his way through life having never become who he was meant to be, then standing up to lead the fight against an enemy he has never faced and doesn't know how to defeat, or passing on everything he's learned to someone else before dying in a blaze of glory saving humanity as he was always meant to. With Luke and Indy, both of them are shown to be old, broken, bitter men who have lost everything they cared about and are just waiting to die. And instead of relying on their experience, determination, and willpower to solve their problems and find happiness again, they are instead guided by younger women who are better than them at pretty much everything, and ultimately rely on them to finally come back from the brink. Fans don't want to see their childhood heroes get kicked to the curb so someone younger, hotter, and more skilled can take their place. We want to see our childhood heroes adapting to old age, going on one last adventure, and ending their stories on a high note, and Hollywood has consistently failed to do that again and again.
@@Leprechaunproduction Well put. The destruction of heroes is an important part of conquering and subjugating a culture. We are in the midst of an ideological and cultural war. The message: Tear down your old statues, abandon your old gods and heroes, and embrace your new masters.
You mean male heroes are being torn down not all heroes; The war on masculinity and positive male role models by the powers that be. Female heroes on the other hand, aren't being torn down but they are having their inherent female traits replaced with masculine traits because feminists and leftists do not consider female traits & agency to have any merit and want to warp women to become more like men in an effort to subvert society; hence the epitome of a strong woman is a woman that behaves like a man in every way, creating insufferable tokenized female characters that put off the viewing audience to the point that the masses now outright avoid watching movies starring female protagonists ( Rings of power Galadriel vs Tolkien's/Peter Jacksons Galadriel).
@@Leprechaunproduction Well said. And for a stellar example of doing the reverse of this, we got the much-loved Top Gun: Maverick. Turns out giving people what they want instead of what "you" (these writers/etc) want gives better results, who ever would have guessed...
“This should be Tolkien’s work, not ours”, is an idea more writers should use in these modern times. Some themes transcend time and space. Great video!
Nothing is more beautiful to me than Tolkien's later description of Minas Tirith given to Boromir as dialogue much earlier in Fellowship. It conveys so painfully the way Boromir saw his home, in his heart, and how he carried it with him. And if anything, it makes it more significant because in that way, it is communicated to Aragorn.
@@yllejord Well...ultimately yes, of course. Because even insofar as Tolkien was shaped by the horrors of the fields of France to some extent, in his short experience of WW1, he was also strongly, and passionately a proponent of standing against and overcoming evil. And he knew sometimes that would inevitably involve a fighting in ideological, philosophical, and physical terms. The books involve many great literal conflicts on the field of battle.
"We had no interest whatsoever of putting our junk... our baggage into these movies." -Peter Jackson If only all other producers/directors/creatives thought this way about long standing stories instead of using them as an excuse to force feed us their fanfics.
I think it can be done, but it's like changing a recipe. You have to understand what you're doing - why the onions are cut in that way, or why you stir it every 2 minutes instead of 2 1/2. If I order lasagna, I would expect to get lasagna; but if it's described on the menu as lasagna with some changes, I'd be willing to order that too.
@@jorbdan6305 The problems with the Hobbit trilogy were more a product of studio interference than anything Jackson did. Hell, he didn't even want to be involved -- he was brought in last minute after del Toro was fired from the project.
@@jorbdan6305 The Hobbit films are pretty terrible, yes, but I think the only reason they weren't a complete disaster is Jackson. Take a look at some of the behind the scenes stuff from those movies. The studio (who was responsible for the decision to make it another trilogy) brought in Jackson last minute to replace del Toro. Instead of 3-4 years of prep like he had for LotR, Jackson had weeks. He even said that it was somewhat common for him to send everyone to lunch so that he could plan out the scene they would film when everyone came back. Like, what? It's amazing that the movies made any sense at all. IMO the studio trashed the Hobbit, and Jackson salvaged what he could.
The original LOTR films combined are the greatest trilogy ever made. Every film provided so many iconic moments and added new dynamic layers to the ongoing quest of destroying the cursed ring which all led to interesting character developments and eventually a satisfying climax. The cinematic success and critical response to all three films is still unparalleled to this day.
"Nowadays people see old stories need to be fixed" probably mentioned 100 tims already but thats so true!! People not understanding what made a story or character special and thinking their "modern" sign of the times take is better than a story that's transcended multiple cultures
This is just an urge humans have. We’ve been telling and retelling the same stories for thousands of years. Always changing the bits we want and keeping others. Shit, look at how many different revisions the Christian bible has. And that just since the invention of writing. A lot of those stories were told for ages before we even had writing.
Oh boy, Pirates of the Carribean next? In the past few years more and more people have realized how incredible that trilogy actually was. Very few movies have this many characters, that all have their own motives and act on their own!
@@barkley8285 The character dynamics in the second and third movie are extremely good. One might just gloss over them as classic action, adventure, pirates, etc. movies, but the writing is actually very good. And since other things like visuals, sound design and music are of a good quality too, you get a really good package. There is not a whole lot of bad stuff to say about them, save maybe that their existance was a huge reason why "Master and Commander" never got their sequels - something that "The Return of the King" is too blame for too
@@barkley8285. You're sounding an awful lot like Doug Walker, please stop it! From what I heard mortal kombat's 3D midway era was basically like the Pirates trilogy.
I always loved having elves at Helm's Deep. It echoes the Last Alliance and gives the elves some last on-screen contribution. Reminding viewers of elves, and especially of Arwen, for longer than the book gives was a good call.
Nah, that was lame. And it makes no sense: the last alliance was between the descendants of the Noldor and and the descendants of the Numenoreans. Silvan elves and "lesser" men like the Rohirrim never had an alliance so there's nothing to fulfill.
I dont mind it and supposedly Jackson put them in to convey that the elves fought their own battles in the war which they did. The Dead Army sweeping the field in the last battle is unforgivable though and destroys the main theme of the story that men are now responsible for saving Middle Earth on their own accord.
@@ColoradoStreaming so men getting help from the dead, bad, but men getting help from the elves, good? LoL It would've been somewhat respectable had he included things mentioned but not developed in the text, like Celeborn attacking Dol Guldur.
I think a big difference between Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Rings of Power adaptation is that although LotR is different, you can still feel the heart of Tolkien. You can still see the main story beats. There might not be Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel might have been swapped for Arwen, but The Council of Elrond still happens. Gandalf's fall still happens. The Battle of Pelannor Fields still happens. And in the end, even with removals/swaps, it still tells a coherent and complete story. Whereas with Rings of Power, other than the names of characters and settings, there is not a _single_ story beat from ANYTHING that Tolkien wrote. Galadriel wasn't a warrior, her going back to Valinor before she "passed the test" is a BIG lore contradiction, she never tried to swim across an ocean and run into Sauron on a raft, Galadriel wouldn't have been deceived by Sauron at all, there were no -Hobbits- Harfoots at the time, Galadriel never went to Numenor, Mordor wasn't created through a rube-goldberg machine, Mithril wasn't created by lightning striking a tree that an elf and balrog were fighting under, and the three Rings being forged before the Seven and Nine AND with Sauron's help is ABSOLUTELY lore shattering. I mean seriously, I can't think of one, not one, story beat that was anything that Tolkien put to paper.
"The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all.” (J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Rings, "Concerning Hobbits"). "(Galadriel) was then of Amazon disposition” (The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien, Letter 348). Tolkien only and exclusively used the term amazon for warrior women, the early Valie Measse, Haleth _and_ Galadriel. He explicitely said that e.g. (the final version of) Eowyn was not an amazon. "Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she (Galadriel) fought fiercely against Fëanor in defence of her mother’s kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Fëanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could."(J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales,The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’) "She (Galadriel) looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs" (J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’). This quote is not only Second Age, it comes directly from the time of the Forging of the Rings of Power.
@@anni.68 That may be true but I would still argue that even if they may have had some roots in what Tolkien alluded to, he still didn't write directly any scenes that were reflected in the show. For one thing, even if Tolkien described Galadriel as "Amazonian" she still wasn't a girl boss military commander who blindly led her soldiers across Middle Earth for Eru only knows how many centuries, not caring one iota about their health or well being. And she may not have known that Annatar was Sauron per se, but she still sure as heck didn't trust him, especially given how Tolkien described her as the most perceptive of the elves. And while Hobbits existed, Tolkien didn't describe them as psychotic murder hobos who will leave their own behind at the drop of a hat and yet "not forget them." He didn't consider them important enough to include at all (especially not happening to meet -Gandalf- one of the five Wizards who aren't supposed to show up until the third age and Rings of Prime takes place in the second age) And true, we don't know how Mordor was created, but come on, a rube goldberg machine and an exploding volcano with 1000 degree F pyroclastic flow that somehow didn't kill everyone who was hit by it? Tolkien would have written something _vastly_ more intelligent than that. Same goes for the Mithril thing, even if one was to come up with some convoluted way Mithril was created or that it was "tied to the elves lifeforce" (which is more or less conflicting with Tolkien's description of the elves lives being tied to that of Arda, NOT mithril), surely one could come up with something better than "an elf and a balrog fought under a tree that was struck by lightning and that's how mithril was formed." Even if it's apocryphal, it's still stupid, and it's not reflected in Tolkien's work that their life force is tied to it. And I'll give you that Sauron already left before they technically made the Rings, but it still could be inferred that he might have had more of an influence on them that he should, as well as the fact that they made the three before the others, which still contradicts the orders of Tolkien's events. The three rings were made in response to the One, which was made after the seven for the dwarves and nine for men. So having them made first is silly, and opposite of what Tolkien wrote. Even if there are traces (and very thin traces) of Tolkien's ideas in Rings of Prime, it still stands that the whole overarching story and all of its plot points did _not_ happen in Tolkien's works. And people can argue all day as to the show's quality on it's own (for my money, it's an absolute stinker), but as an adaptation, it's abysmal. And I'm not necessarily against adaptations doing things differently, which is why I like Jackson's films so much, even though I prefer the book. But they're not really adapting anything with the Amazon show. They're taking some Tolkien-esque ideas and writing their own story with it.
@anni.68 "No Elf, neither *Galadriel* nor Celebrimbor and his Gwaith-i-Mírdain, had any chance against his powers of deception" Oof, you just contradicted Tolkien's text in one sentence. What I gleamed from your argument is that you are stating Amazon is justified in making additions/changes to the Legendarium by citing material like The Peoples of Middle-Earth; which they don't have the rights to; or claiming 'Tolkien wrote so very little about this age' which is completely untrue.
The thing is though that it *doesn’t remain faithful or respectful of Tolkien’s themes*, and if those aren’t the heart I don’t know what is? The PJ Trilogy deviates from the structure, characterization and themes of the original novel all the time. It’s telling its own story, heavily inspired by the novel but clearly separate from it in hundreds of ways big and small - and not only in ways that make it more easily accessible to modern audiences, like making Arwen more of a character and giving Aragorn a bunch of self-doubt, but also in ways that truly break Tolkien’s whole theme at absolutely pivotal moments like Frodo pushing Gollum into the Cracks of Doom rather than the eucatastrophe of Gollum slipping in all on his own. Like forget elves eating mithril or whatever - if Tolkien saw that Gollum thing he’d spin so fast in his grave that he’d create a black hole. (Despite this they’re still great movies! I absolutely love them, you can love them too.) When people say stuff like ‘the PJ films kept the story, characters and themes of the novel consistent, which is why it’s beloved by the fanbase, but ROP actively destroys those themes, which is why the fanbase hates it’ you can maybe understand why people get suspicious about your understanding of the OG novels (which btw I’m not saying you didn’t read, because you may have), because everything about that statement is wrong - the PJ films weren’t consistent in those ways at all, so that can’t be why the fanbase loves them. It’s like saying ‘I love the sky because it’s such a nice shade of green’. I think you may be confusing good filmmaking and storytelling (which the movies have in spades) with faithfulness to the material (which the movies have in small trowelfuls). In all honesty the most common critique seems to center on ROP being fanfiction. You can absolutely like and dislike things on whatever criteria you choose - I just think you should remain consistent. And if being fanfiction is enough of a reason to hate something, then I’ve got some terrible news for you about such incredible works as The Aeneid and 50 Shades of Gray and Paradise Lost - these are all fanfictions as well, and I’m afraid you’ve got to hate them too. Personally I think it’s best to critique a piece of storytelling primarily as a story, not as a specific type of medium. When we get to that - the actual storytelling of ROP - that’s when I think we get to ths real stuff that’s actually worthwhile to talk about. And we can absolutely disagree there - but we can agree too! I think ROP has some significant flaws that I’m hoping are ironed out. Im hoping to Eru for that mithril thing to be a red herring lol. That said, ROP also has some really great stuff that engages with Tolkien on a truly deep level, like grappling with the problem of orcs having souls and not just being mindless robots our heroes can slaughter without moral consequences (a problem that Tolkien himself was aware of and never fully resolved, and which the PJ adaptation didn’t touch). ROP also goes into the way that Sauron *actively thinks he is doing good and can attract people to his cause on that basis*, which Tolkien was explicit about - Sauron thinks he’s the good guy and can actually make a compelling (though wrong) case for this, especially in the Second Age. Again, the PJ films don’t touch this with a ten-foot pole, unsurprisingly so because there’s a pervasive and mistaken belief in pop culture that Tolkien’s method is uncomplicatedly black and white. In reality it’s far from that, and while there are good and bad actions every character has a combination of both motivations within them - just like in real life. ROP gets my respect for engaging with the mythos on that level. I’m not gonna defend everything in there. ROP deviated from the source material in some ways that I don’t really like, but it also fleshed out a period in Middle Earth’s history that was just bare bones before and that’s really cool to see on screen - and it’s something we can never get outside of a fanfiction either. That kid’s probably going to turn into a Nazgûl and we get to understand why he would even if we don’t agree with it, and that’s absolutely cool and has the potential to explore some fantastic moral quandaries, and I think Tolkien would really appreciate that approach to adapting his work (despite the fact that o think he’d hate most of pretty much any adaptation we’ve seen so far). Anyway, that’s me.
@@jaceyking47 Maybe you're forgetting that the RoP folks are making a series that happens IN THE GAPS of what Tolkien wrote. OF COURSE they didn't happen in Tolkien's works. But what was Elendil up to until he shows up in Tolkien's works? Isildur? What were Elrond and Gil-Galad up to in between the scenes we see? WE DON'T KNOW. So the writers are filling that in. There are definitely things in there, and will be things, that Tolkien wrote, but he spent very little time on the Second Age. I feel like there is so much you're missing here. I've watched RoP enough times to see the ways in which it absolutely connects to Tolkien's works. Look, you hate RoP? That's fine. But you've only seen a little of one season of a 5-season story. Much is yet to happen. And the showrunners have repeatedly talked about how much they love and respect Tolkien and his works. So have many of the actors. I think a lot of people have their knickers in a twist over RoP because they weren't going to give it a chance from the get-go. Warrior Galadriel, oh no! This is shit! No. It is not. And Season 2 is going to be epic.
I always appreciated the changes to Aragorn and Faramir. Your comment about how making Aragorn reluctant inadvertently makes it seem that a perfect king should be reluctant I always thought was the point. It makes it all the more clear that Aragorn isn't entitled, arrogant, or power hungry. Sure, he was never any of those things, but when you have time for fewer words to characterize someone, it helps to use signposts that tell you what a character is like, and by making Aragorn reluctant to take the throne, it shows us clearly that he's an honorable man who isn't shouldering the responsibility of the crown lightly but rather that he's doing it because it's necessary and because he truly is the best person for it. As for Faramir, I think I'll just defer to Paarthurnax from Skyrim: "What is better? to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" Obviously Faramir was not evil by nature, but the point is that, much like Aragorn, seeing Faramir struggle with the temptation but ultimately overcome it paints him in an even more noble light than if he were just apparently perfect from the beginning. And even besides all of that for both characters, this just gives the two of them character arcs instead of having them be static the entire story while still staying true to the original characterization by having those arcs end on how they were intended to be, and that's just always going to be a more compelling thing to see happen.
I might be in the minority here but I’m glad that they didn’t include the scouring of the shire in the film. After having the epic climax in the war of the ring and defeating Sauron it would just seem anticlimactic and underwhelming to include it. Almost like doing a side quest after completing the main story of a game. And plus it would have added at least another 30 to 45 minutes to an already long film . So obviously sacrifices had to be made to ensure the film was properly paced. I understand it’s significance it had in the books but I think it was a nice touch to have the four hobbits return home and seeing that life for the other hobbits of the shire still remained the same and that they were so cut off from the outside world they had no idea that their lives were in danger or could even comprehend the intense journey that the four had gone through. It Also was a good way to show how each of the four hobbits suffered PTSD in their own way while trying to return to their old lives after the experiences they went through. It was rather fitting to show that the hobbits would never be the same again after their journey. It’s a good representation of what soldiers in the military experience when they return home after facing the horrors of war and struggle to re-enter society and into civilian life. Which I’m sure Tolkien of all people would appreciate and understand.
I agree. The main story is over so some more soft handing imagery showing they change is better for the movie. I never like the whole every soldier suffer from PTSD. It is a terrible stereotype and a worse trope that writer lean on too much.
Most people fail to realize the vast difference between prose and cinema. Pacing, for one, is almost opposite between books and movies. A film must contain all plot and character development within a couple of hours or so. A book allows a reader to take weeks, if they wish, to digest the story. They are utterly different mediums, as much different as music is to painting.
@@randomusernameCallin Huh...my father (a veteran of Vietnam) and my grandfathers (WW2 veterans) all related that they found the quiet, reflective silence of the four hobbits in the Green Dragon deeply moving, as it represented the inability for veterans to "go home again" among civilians who cannot understand their experiences.
@@randomusernameCallin Weird to call it a stereotype or a trope when it is drawn from the author's lived experience, and it's not "an every soldier has ptsd" thing when a crucial part of Frodo's suffering is that his suffering was unique among the hobbits. The contrast between Frodo's mental state and that of Merry and Pippin is important, war changes soldiers in different ways.
As someone that casually read the books a long time before the movies came out I was very pleasently surprised to notice some of the many details you are talking about! Every time I rewatch the movies I found a new detail and now thanks to your video I will pay even more atention to them. Great great video!
@@NemisCassanderIt is from professor Tolkien. He was even suspicious of this new technology so he prayed on it before using it. You can search it up the original by searching Tolkien narrating Ride of the Rohirrin
I think a notable difference between PJ's adaption and many others is that while they still made changes from the source, the changes they made were by and large out of consideration for *translating* Tolkien's words, world, and story to a new medium (film). I don't feel like they saw themselves as *enhancing* or *updating* what he wrote, as is too often the case nowadays.
And those changes were mostly fitting into the rest of the story. Many movies make changes, but don't adjust anything and then characters or story arcs make no sense anymore
One of the main things that work in books but not in movies is the amount of characters the ring comes across without them being really tempted: Isildir is on his way to give up the ring to wise (to destroy), Tom Bombadil plays with the ring, Faramir would not even pick it up, in addition to Bilbo, Sam and Frodo offering up the ring. When conveying the corrupting power of the ring, you can't in a movie have half the characters give it up willingly or even play with it. In the books, there is more room for many character's perspectives and more inner debate with textual context.
Gandalf backing up from it like it's radioactive speaks volumes about just how dangerous it is. If the Merlin of your story is afraid, then you KNOW you'd better be terrified.
Personally, I'm still firmly in the belief that the first half of Fellowship was the most disjointed rambling pointless part of the entire story. It was just wacky dangerous adventures the Hobbits were going through on their way to Bree, when Lord of The Rings was kind of going on like The Hobbit. Tom Bombadil and the whole mess on the Barrowdowns had no impact on the later story whatsoever, and if it had been included in the movies would have just confused everyone. I adore worldbuilding, but I also prefer when it has a point. When I tell people about the lore that was left out of the movies, I tell them about the Scouring of the Shire, about Sam planting the mallorn tree, about the real fate of Saruman, about Merry and Pippin becoming proud (and very tall!) knights of Rohan and Gondor, about Aragorn's death and Arwen's withering away, about how Sam travels to Valinor and at length so too do Legolas, and Gimli with his crystal that contained three hairs of Galadriel, about how the heirs of the Red Book of Westmarch wrote the story that became the books once translated by Tolkien after he received it through the fourth wall. I don't mention silly old Tom Bombadillo, with his blue coat and his boots of yellow.
@@Yonkage-ik5qb While I have some similar feelings about the start of the fellowship, nothing Tolkien wrote was pointless. Sometimes the meaning was buried outside of the core of the novel. For the example of the Barrowdowns, the swords that were recovered there by the hobbits were forged and enchanted by ancient men specifically to do battle with the Witch King and his ilk. Had Merry struck the Witch King with any other blade it would not have wounded him so. It's part of what I love so much about the writing, though I can understand why others disagree, and why some of it's unsuitable for adaptation.
Friendly reminder that excellent fan cuts of the Hobbit movies exist and that if you have given up on the trilogy, you may want to check them out. While there is a lot of junk in these movies, there is also a lot of stuff that is on par with the Lord of the Rings movies and if you filter out most of the bad stuff, you are left with a pretty good movie
@@notjustanother3191 I have watched one of those and it was pretty great except the tone/pacing of the Unexpected Party felt off without the prologue.
Honestly, if you ignore the love triangle bits, they're pretty decent movies. My primary problem with them is how I think they fail to transition from "light-hearted children's movie" in the first movie to "extremely serious prelude to the LOTR trilogy" by the third, when I don't think the books were really written that way. Extended edition Battle of the Give Armies has some fantastic funny/action moments with that dumb war cart that I just love.
@@LoganChristianson That's exactly the kind of scene that fans did NOT like. It's the hollywood approach to doing action scenes and it's just as unbearable as bollywoods ridiculous stuff. I don't think it would have worked to have the movies to be as light hearted as the book, because than you would have a massive contrast to the LotR movies and since both are life action movies with some identical casts, identical scenery and so on, this would have been very jarring
The scene at the end where Tolkien is reading about the Rohirrim's charge over the movie scene caught me completely off guard. I started crying and couldnt stop, which did not happened to me for the past 10 years or so, I feel so much better now, thank you.
@@DestinyAwaits19I would actually say the opposite - the Extended versions are how the movie should have been in the first place. It adds so much detail, adds so much to the journey that seemed lost in comparison to the books … Watching the extended versions simply can‘t be undone - after it, she „short“ version simply feels lacking …
@@arneczool6614 Yes. There are scenes left out in the theatricals. Perhaps important ones. But to that I would say they won't be missed. They have enough scenes to tell the story, and get the point across. The extended editions take the perfect pacing of the movies and over indulge in fan service. Aragorn eating Eowyn's stew is pointless. So is Merry and Pippin drinking Ent Water. Or an Orc complaining to Saruman about lack of logistics. While these scenes are fun, they are also corny and not needed. And there's too many of them. Too many for my comfort that ruins the feel of an epic trilogy. It indulges in triviality. The extended editions are beloved because they're fun. But Lord of the Rings is not meant to be fun. It's a journey of darkness and treachery. Its not meant to be Disney Land. Which is what I think the fans don't get. They're meant to be ominous and foreboding, which the theatricals do an excellent job of preserving.
@@DestinyAwaits19 For me, exactly these little „pointless“ details make the difference to really „feel“ for the characters. If I‘d watch a random action movie, I want it to quickly come to some cool action scenes without too much interruptions, but for Lord of the Rings, its totally different. I want to experience the whole journey, not just the highlights - and even scenes like the „soup for Aragorn“ might look just as funny additions at first sight, but so much more flesh out the characters and their relaition towards each other. And my goal when watching lord of the right is not to get “the most efficient way to see the point of the story“, its to experience middle earth, to feel like being a part of it. And especially the contrast between LoR and the hobbit extended points out what I mean. The LotR extended seems to pay more respect to Tolkins work, while the Hobbit does exactly what you said about LotREx.
@@arneczool6614 LOTR movies should be an adaptation... not a translation. Jackson's movies are a creation of their own. They're not replica's of Tolkien's work. The movies are based around battles, which Tolkien was against. Further proving as movies they're meant to be ominous and foreboding and tense. I never liked the books. I never liked Tolkien's writing style. He drags on and meanders, and it doesn't suit a 21st Century audience raised on guns and action.
Its the trick of turning any book into a film/TV show. Changes have to be made as they are two different mediums. The key is to know what to change while still keeping faith to what the authors whole point for including it in their book for.
''Books and movies are different mediums; adaptations have to make changes.'' 90% of defenses for the Peter Jackson movies. The problem is that those movies have hundreds of unnecessary changes, butcher the characters and are unfaithful to the book.
@@reek4062They were as faithful to the books as a love adaption at the time would permit them to be. It is obvious they made changes solely for the purpose of adaption rather than inserting their own messages into Tolkien's story. I've seen in the replies to many comments on this video and you don't seem to understand this.
@@ShatteredIce These movies are a love adaptation in the same way rapists love their victims. They made changes because they had no faith or interest in Tolkien's story.
That last line, spoken by Tolkien in the old recording, "...they sang as they slew...," never fails to raise a lump in my throat. I remember my very first reading of it in the book, so many years ago. I was thunderstruck! It filled me with a terrible wonder, constricting my throat and moistening my eyes. I was _in_ that battle! I was _on_ the Pelennor! Those warriors, whom I'd been picturing in my mind's eye as vikings on horseback, singing in deep-throated notes, in time with their spears and swords, as they slashed and hewed the evil orc flesh! The entire dusty, sweaty, bloody, noisy, maelstrom of battle swept around me! And they were _singing_ about it! I really wished we could have seen that captured on screen! But, it was a few years out from Braveheart, when such movies' depictions of old-time edged-weapon battles was all sound and fury and near-subliminal speed and flashes of action, so that was the vision audiences and directors were used to. Still, would have been nice to have heard that singing....
Spot on observation about Dune, arguably its biggest weakness is the lack of original dialogue in place of flat and uninspiring alternatives which is a shame because the visuals are so striking. Whereas Jackson managed to compliment visuals with dialogue, which is why it feels so authentic.
I keep falling asleep during those films..There is no story, just grand visuals and unsympathetic characters. I find myself rooting for the villains ..👺👺
The reason Tolkien's words are so much more effective than Herbert's is that Tolkien was a better writer. High fantasy is a garden of delight for an old school, poetic wordsmith. Herbert created an extraordinarily rich and detailed world, but he lacked the poetic sensibilities to populate the books he wrote about it with gorgeous prose. In Herbert's defense, the writing style in speculative fiction had moved on. The ideas had become richer, but the prose poorer.
I fear we’ll never see the care and dedication that went into this series again. I always remember a section from the extended cut special features where someone said (may have been Jackson himself) that they approached the films more like a documentary, which gave rise to the sheer detail throughout. And Bernard Hill (RIP) mentioned how his royal robes had little horses embroidered on the inside linings as an example. Something the audience would never notice but done anyway because the movies were such a labor of love. Here was a trilogy, when comes such another?
Never. I truly believe that. I followed the making of the films back in the day on TORN and other sources and to us it was evident with which LOVE everyhone involved made this LOTR film. Script, cast, crew, everyone. That dedication I think you will NEVER find again on this earth.
As someone who grew up on Tolkien, and who chaffed at some of the changes Jackson and company made (Theoden and Gandalf's positions on using Helm's Deep, the changes to Faramir and Denethor, and Sauron as a giant eye, being foremost), I've always thought they did about as good a job as could be done. No, it's not perfect, but I strongly doubt we'll see anything any better in our lifetimes. It's not perfect, but it's very good.
For me the biggest vandalism are the changes to Frodo to make him less capable, more of a passenger. Not fighting to the last against the Witch King, not being the one to face them at the ford, staggering around like he is mind controlled in Osgiliath and offering the ring to a Nazgul (!) and sending Sam away on the stairs, all terrible changes imo that make Frodo not the same character he was in the books. And given Frodo is the main character of the story, getting him right is really important. But I agree, Denethor and Faramir get done dirty as well. But really few characters escape the adaptation without being lessened and coarsened.
@@johnnybigbones4955 I totally agree that the film misses something important by letting Frodo be so seemingly weak. His understanding of what was at stake and his complete trust in Gandalf made him strong against the power of the Ring to corrupt. Those moments you mention were wasted opportunities to give him the stature he deserves. Sam is often looked at as the real hero, but Sam understood he was above all the protector and enabler of the one who carried the Burden, a task he was not cut out to do.
Definitely dropped the ball on Frodo, he's pretty much unrecognizable. Not sure why they made him so incompetent. And I don't get the choice to send Sam away in the middle of ROTK, just drama I guess? As if there isn't enough? I didn't mind the changes to Faramir, but Denethor was way too cartoonishly dickish.
the biggest things that were lost to me personally was Theoden (reduced to rambling rotten oldman, instead of an annoyed and depressed one, Denethor - reduced to a blabbering suicidal fool on fire, instead of a powerful and tragic figure.. and the whole of the Pellenor battle, where the 'dead' cheat-killed everyone reducing the heroism of all other parties that overcame overwhelming odds by themselves.. to senseless nothing winning only due to instakill plotarmor.) All of that was lost in the movies. Still, they are a masterpiece. (Especially the first move, directors cut)
I still remember reading Tolkien’s books, and I still remember watching Jackson’s movies. I had forgotten Rings of Power existed until you reminded me of it. That’s the sign of a story that lasts. I bet in 100 years, Jackson’s films will still be as fondly remembered as the books are now.
It's bonkers how I actually tear up when hearing snippets of monologue from these books/movies, even in a documentary form. "Then I shall die as one of them" "Ride now, ride now, ride now" And great video, btw. I very much like the comparisons.
So glad I'm not the only one! However people may feel about the movie adaptations, the fact that they can have such an impact on us from just a clip... surely says enough.
When you have beautiful writing paired with expert actors, the setting doesn't matter as much haha. I got tears a few times watching this from how poignant the delivery of certain lines was. Sam speaking of Faramir's character hit me especially hard.
Firstly, congratulations on an interesting, insightful and well made, comparative analysis of films with the books! You opted to follow the 15-20mins standard TH-cam video length, but I would've appreciated a longer version. Regarding Aragorn in the films, I don't think he despised his inheritance at all (6:55). Instead, he was reluctant to rule because he lacked faith in himself, being haunted by Isildur's failure. This gave him a character arc which added depth to his character by making his motivations more believable. It makes sense that a descendant of "Rangers from the North", who was raised at Rivendell (amongst elves) would be reluctant to travel South to Gondor to reclaim the throne of a kingdom he has no personal connection with. Indeed, the first film contrasts Aragorn's relative disinterest in Gondor with Boromir's unabashed love for his country, (despite the continued stress caused by conflict with Mordor) which makes his desperate attempt to take The One Ring from Frodo more believable. Over the course of Jackson's films, Aragorn gradually realizes that he must become King, not because he wants to, but because Gondor (and their allies in Middle-Earth) badly need a leader to inspire them in their darkest hour. Indeed, in the books Aragorn isn't even heir to Gondor, as Isildur ruled over Arnor, while his younger brother Anarion, ruled over Gondor. This is why the stewards argue that he has no claim to the throne and Denethor refuses to acknowledge him as King. Such details were omitted from the films to simplify the story for audiences, but as you say repeatedly in the video, when adapting a book means changing things...
So telling how they did the opposite for The Hobbit trilogy, and how much the films suffered for the alterations. We don't need an elf/dwarf love triangle, we don't need a cross dressing side character, we don't need a giant CGI setpiece battle every 20 minutes.
Check out fan cuts. They tend to remove Legolas, Tauriel, Alfred and sometimes even Azog for the most part. And also reduce the battle of the five armies to a reasonable amount
@@racernatorde5318 I'll definitely check it out. There are some great moments in The Hobbit, but the best bits are Riddles in the Dark, or the confrontation with Smaug, and the low points are the pointless action or manufactured drama for screentime.
The problem was the opposite of LotR--Jackson sought to make LotR, and had to convince a studio to let him. For the Hobbit, the studio cajoled Jackson into being the producer, and when he had to take over for Del Toro, they were already far into production and he had to cut corners to meet the deadline the studio gave.
@@racernatorde5318 The fan cut is the only version I remember now. I only wish there be something done with how Bilbo decided to go on an adventure. Not by contract, but because of his deeply rooted ancestry being invoked upon.
My favorite quote about adapting books into movies or tv shows is from Ty Franck who said that "always think of an adaption as a retelling of a story by a different narrator" and I think Peter Jackson and his team have outdone themselves with the "narration" on these movies.
I do appreciate you taking the time to source the original quotes from the book - it makes this video more than just an intercut of existing DVD extra material, which it seems 99% of LotR film related content these days are
The ‘old man Willow’ scene isn’t completely frivolous in the Two Towers as it helps to seed the idea of the danger of the Huorns and gives us a clearer idea of what’s happening to the fleeing Uruks at the end of the extended edition.
Really fascinating essay, I actually hadn't realized how jumbled the dialogue and writing was. Also, 14:15 This was actually really scintillating! It makes me want to see an edit of the LOTR films with the footage/scenes from the movies cut over readings by Tolkein himself like this.
I liked the Faramir change, because it explained the relationship between him and his father. Faramir was noble, but this moment of weakness transported so much backstory.
The main reason I think that they deviated from a more literal translation is that what works for a book does not necessarily work well for a film, something Tolkien would not have factored in when creating the books. What made the films ultimately work was that they still FELT right because of the deep respect for the original books, even if details differed here and there.
Tolkein himself approved of adaptation as a concept after all - he'd even advocated for cutting Helm's Deep out entirely if it better fit a movie so as to not clash with the Battle of the Pellenor Fields.
@@ariandynas A video essay whose main thesis is "Jackson showed 'respect' for the books by taking words Tolkien wrote for specific characters, divorcing them from those characters, and giving them to others." Ah yes, that's so respectful of Tolkien. A scrapbook of dialogue put into the mouths of whatever character Jackson felt like that day. That certainly has no adverse effects on characterization.
More people need to watch this video. I LOVE the movies, I love the books. I love the 'changes' Peter Jackson and others made in the LoTR movies because they kept the heart, spirit and intention of Tolkien's work paramount. They wanted Tolkien to be proud of them and make the movies FOR him. THAT is how you adapt things across mediums.
It's the Return of the King of TH-cam movie analysis! I've never read Lord of the Rings but somehow read the much more difficult Silmarillion (planning to read Beren and Lothien and Fall of Gondolin next after finishing Dune), but I was always interested in the conflict on Jackson's LOTR series not being adapted precisely to the book. Since a lot of adaptations as you said are more of the "this is mine" meme and change a lot of the intentions of the novel, I'm much more jaded in a way where I think movie adaptations/remakes should be not only 90% accurate to the source material, but also to respect the intentions of the author/director (hopefully Eggers achieves this in his remake of Nosferatu). I always felt that Jackson could have done more to make the movie accurate to the books, and that switch Aragorn to know that he'll be King of Gondor one day, but his route is still full of temptation. Tolkien written Aragorn to be the kingship aspect of Jesus, so I was wondering Jackson, who is irreligious, still could have adapted Aragorn's arc to be similar to Jesus's walk in the desert where Satan keeps tempting him. However, I do see the struggle in creating an arc for Aragorn from this moment, so alas, as you said, due to the current times of where it is compelling to see a character arise from his flaws and people loving action scenes, it was much more practical for Jackson to drop this element in the first movie but then bring him back in wanting to become King in the RotK. It's tragic though because I think Christopher who loved the language of his father in the books would never be able to be comprehended by the masses. Hence why I should attempt to read the LotR someday. I'm just surprised that your video addressed these concerns where I thought this analysis was going to compare the writers of Rings of Power of how they tried to make LotR theirs while Jackson did his best to preserve Tolkien's legacy. But it probably won't be a fun video to write since TH-cam is bloated with RoP getting (righteously) trashed on videos. It feels that you are my conscious ngl. I should have known though that you'll always surprise people with new things as seen by the Anti-Trilogy videos and the Lucas saga videos, so this was very eye-opening. See you next year!
As I'm reading Lord of the Rings, I always get a little caught off-guard when I come across a line in the book that sounds in my head like the actor from the movies is saying it. It's also interesting just how much more conflict the movies have compared to the books. Faramir's choice was mentioned in the video, but also Théoden's loss of hope and pretty much every conversation between Smeagol and Gollum leading to Sam being dismissed. I totally understand that character arcs need to either start at or reach a low point in order for there to be a compelling upliftment and culmination, it's just a little jarring when you're experiencing both back-to-back.
Beren and Luthien and Fall of Gondolin are a little difficult because they aren't finished narratives. They are a compilation of various versions in different states of completion. Still worth reading but its important to know what your getting into. You should also check out Children of Hurin, it is complete and is also one of the great tales of the first age. The conversation between Hurin and Morgoth is one of my favorite scenes in all of Tolkien.
Aragorn was not a protagonist in the book, but a supporting character. Jackson turned him into a protagonist in the film, so he needed a full character arc, meaning he had to show significant growth, like all protagonists must. The problem was that book Aragorn was already a fully matured character that needed little to no development--he was already responsible, desired to claim the throne, was secure in his love and desire to marry Arwen, etc. Great for a supporting character in the book...but he needed to show development as a protagonist in the film.
@@rikk319 basically he went through movie Aragorn's character arc already, while in the movies he just setting foot on this path of becoming better and more worthy as the King
Great video. One of the things I appreciate the most about the LotR adaption is that, while there were some significant changes, they not only made sure to pull different character lines from the books, but also made sure to stick to the general themes of the books: Faramir's change, while drastically altering him as a character, still supports the theme surrounding the corrupting power of the ring; Aragorn's character change still holds the idea of a good king at its center, warrior vs healer in the books, and power-hungry/prideful vs humble in the movies. That is what makes it one of the best book-to-movie adaptions of all time: respect for the source material.
This video has ones of the most nuanced, articulated and well thought out words about PJ's trilogy I've ever heard ! Great, great work ! People often follow radical paths when it comes to talk about iconic IPs like LOTR, in good or bad. So listening to deep and well thought out remarks about the films and the books was very refreshing and captivating.
I like to compare it the first HP movie which came out at the same time. It was flat. Almost a word-for-word adaptation. It’s a great story, but a meh movie. PJ created a perfect adaptation of “Fellowship” by moving into a visual medium what were spoken and vice versa. The later movies were not AS good, but still acceptable adaptations.
@@ktrimbach5771 I think they pretty much nailed it with Fellowship, you can't adapt a work that massive better than that. Most changes make sense, while the other two have both baffling changes and additions. King is almost certainly the worst adaptation-wise.
'The scouring of the shire' is NOT (amongst other things) about Frodo suffering from PTSD. He was forever affected by the knife wound given to him on Weathertop by the Ringwraith. The damage had been done even though Elrond managed to remove all the broken fragments later, Frodo had by that time almost succumbed and became a Ringwraith . He was physically affected NOT mentally, and suffered bouts of great physical pain even once back in the shire. His body was still trying to transform into a Wraith, this would never go away but instead increase with time. Gandalf and Elrond discuss this amongst themselves whilst waiting for Frodo to recover and wake up after the 'Flight to the ford'. Even Sam sees this happening to Frodo later on in the Two Towers and wonders what will become of him in the future if they survive and accomplish their task.
Seeing the charge of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor Fields while listening to Tolkein read one of my favorite excerpts from the book brought tears to my eyes.
I really like how this video emphasizes that the product achieved is downstream from the intentions. I argued a long time ago, using Aragorn and Faramir as key examples, that the main difference in the book characters vs the movie characters was the concept of a character vs a paragon. A paragon is someone who arrives in the story, fully formed, representing the best of who they are. They are an example to aspire to. And this is the common form of older stories. Contrast that with characters. Characters are members of the story who are not perfect, and who struggle. They have some kind of flaw, or general shortcoming, and over the course of the story they grow and confront those flaws and become better. Arguable Hero's Journey stories are basically the process by which a character becomes a paragon. So under this lens, Aragorn being a reluctant king, because he sees his ancestry as a curse and a failing rather than a mandate, makes him more of a character. Book Aragorn and Movie Aragorn end up as basically the same person by the end of their respective mediums, but we watch the process happen in the movies. And that's partly why I do have to sigh and shake my head at Christopher Tolkien's complaints that are echo'd by many others, about LotR just being 'action movies'. The Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli+WW part of the Two Towers is basically stand-alone in the books, and it's nothing but an action-adventure romp of four paragons. Aragorn goes around calling himself king, with his great sword, and anyone who doesn't immediately love and defer to him must just not have heard the good news yet. It's good, and it's fun, but its more of an action movie than any part of the LotR movies because there's basically no struggle and no introspection or growth. Just a bunch of awesome dudes going around being awesome, accomplishing a goal.
No idea if people want to read a massive wall of text, but since it was well-recieved in the conversation, I did express some thoughts on the Faramir adaptation. I think there was more done with his character than is often claimed by the critics, how they just 'ruined' him. I think they did something more with him: I think the other character that got changed the most was Faramir. And a lot of people didn't like that because Faramir in the books was awesome, and they didn't like him being changed into a completely different person. /briareus08 expressed such a feeling. And I get that. I love Faramir in the books too. But there is something to be said for his changes in the movie. He perhaps provides an even greater distinction than Aragorn between a Paragon who does and a Character who struggles. And I think it makes him more interesting in the movie than the book. Speaking in broad generalities here, In the books Faramir is the mirror image of Boromir. Boromir was a great leader and warrior, while Faramir was a great leader and scholar. They were two sides of the same coin. To illustrate this, when Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he instantly realizes that he ought to help them, and that they're on an important mission. When mention of the ring is vaguely brought up, he basically dismisses it out of hand. "I wouldn't pick it up if it were laying on the side of the road." or something like that. This demonstrates that he's wise, and studied, and knows not to go after the ring. But on the other hand... to me this really diminishes the weight of the Ring itself. If, randomly, some people can just ignore it, that really undercuts the idea of this being an all-corrupting evil. Which kind of makes Boromir look really weak in comparison to his brother. He was driven mad by the ring while Faramir just says: "Nah, no thanks." and leaves it at that. Now, one could argue that if Faramir had seen or gotten into contact with the ring, he might have been corrupted just as easily as Boromir, and Faramir knew that which is why he would intentionally never touch it. But denying oneself temptation isn't exactly the same thing as resisting it. It's the difference between an alcoholic turning down a drink at a bar, or staying home. One relies on your force of will, while the other relies on smart forward-thinking so that your will is never tested. It'd certainly be the [Book]-Faramir thing to do, but all the same, it's a little less interesting. It's the same sort of question as: "Can you really be courageous if you're never afraid?" In the movie, Fairmir is changed from being his brother's mirror image to being his opposite or his understudy. A lesser leader and a lesser warrior. And this sets up a great dynamic between Faramir and his family. Despite always being in his brother's shadow, Faramir is never resentful or jealous of his brother - he loves Boromir outright, and Boromir him in turn. What he craves is the approval of his father. Denathor arguably takes the biggest hit in losing complexity and nuance from book to movie, but his more simplistic characterization serves to better drive the Faramir/Denathor dynamic, which I think was a worthwhile tradeoff. So when movie Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he waylays them, and plans to send them with the ring to his father to finally gain Denathor's approval. Faramirs more normal susceptibility to the draw of the ring helps drive the parallels between him and Boromir, and doesn't make Boromir look abnormally corruptible. More importantly, Faramir eventually relents and sends the Hobbits on their way. This act is significant because it shows three huge things all at once. First, Faramir succeeds where his brother failed. He finally rose above and out of his brother's shadow. And he doesn't do this easily, but is really rather on the edge, and struggles with it. Secondly, this choice of doing the right thing and rising above his brother is a choice in his own mind, by his own standard, rather than his father's. It's in direct defiance of what his father would want of him - the father whose approval he desperately craved. And it's not so simplistic as him renouncing his father and deciding not to care about what Denathor thinks. We see in the third film that he's still willing to literally throw his life away just to try and gain his father's approval. It's easy to make a choice when you stop caring about one of the options. It's far more interesting, dramatic, and demonstrative of an underlying strength of character to desperately want both things and still choose the right thing. In the end, the example of Boromir's death was stronger than Faramirs desperation for Denathor's approval. It pushed him over the edge, which means Faramir likely only succeeded where Boromir failed because of Boromir's example. And so (thirdly) through Fairamir, by being a loving brother, Boromir also gains redemption. Faramir is an utterly different person in the books and the movies. And it's perfectly fair to argue that the cost of losing book-Faramir was't worth it. But it's undeniable that the Faramir we got in the movies perfectly fits into the themes of the story, and provides for great dynamic between him and his family which ties together and strengthens the characterization of both him and Boromir. I think he's probably one of the strongest and best-written characters in the movies because of that. Which is a funny contrast because Sam remains my favorite character, and he's perfect precisely because he's totally faithful to his book counterpart. I see no distinction between the two - Movie Sam just gets an awesome soundtrack to accompany him. Which goes to show that Tolkien was perfectly capable of writing great, characters. The choice to have most of the fellowship already be paragons - Heros past their own Heroic journey, fully realized and just doing heroic things - was an active choice to make the books more focused on the world and the adventure. He wasn't lacking, he just had a different focus than what the movies did, and it makes it all the richer that we get both experiences.
And that is a great video. Seriously, it's far better than all the "Rings of Power is trash" videos that are around these days, your work on actual quotes and a simple yet meaningful subject is great and too rare.
This was a very interesting video. As someone who read the books after watching the films, I was intrigued and somewhat conflicted by how much things were shifted around narratively speaking. But, as you've pointed out, it was effectively all part of the adaptive process. Something like the Scouring of the Shire technically still appeared, but was changed so that it would better fit the narrative structure of the film. Adapting a smaller, less complex and detail packed book like Harry Potter was always going to be easier than the epic behemoth of Tolkiens trilogy. But Jackson did a pretty good job - as you've pointed it out- of capturing the enchanting feel of the books through his restructuring of moments and dialogue.
Thanks for a great video. A few thoughts about Aragorn, who in movie and book form is probably my favorite fictional character of all time: You're right that the PJ movies played up the "reluctant hero" who had to be convinced to pursue the throne. However, I think this video's characterization is oversimplified. Looking deeper at Aragorn's life story (esp. from the LOTR appendices), if being king were his main desire, he might have, at a much earlier stage of his life, with the aid of the Dunedain and the Elves, attempted to re-form the Northern Kingdom (Arnor) and claim that kingship, since that region was basically a complete power vacuum. Instead, he traveled under a false name to Rohan, to ride with the Rohirrim, then to Gondor also under an assumed name, to fight the forces of Sauron, making no attempt whatsoever to establish his rightful claim. There's even an enigmatic sentence about how, in his moment of highest triumph as a captain of Gondor, he simply walked away, traveling into the East alone to uncover and disrupt the plots of the Enemy wherever he could find them, which I interpret as an almost 007-like solo mission--but self-appointed, with no M to dictate the mission. When he returned to the North, he and his Rangers worked as a covert army protecting the Shire and Bree-land from evil creatures, but rather than take any credit to establish a reputation and take up a crown, he instead kept this entire guardianship a strictly guarded secret--Bree-landers had no idea what the Rangers were doing, and the Shire-folk never even knew they existed. None of this makes any sense if claiming the throne was his main goal. My take is this: Tolkien framed Aragorn as being worthy of being king less because he was the rightful heir, and much more because he spent his entire life, 80+ years, risking unimaginable hardship in order to fight Sauron, the great enemy of the free peoples of Middle Earth. The only reason Aragorn really *wanted* to be king, as I read it, is because Arwen was his one true love, and Elrond insisted Arwen would marry no lesser mortal Man than the king of both Gondor and Arnor. But even with this in mind, Aragorn put no real effort into becoming king; rather, he understood (thanks mainly to Gandalf) that the only way humans and elves alike had a future was if Sauron could somehow be defeated--which seemed utterly impossible. He saw the role of king as above all that of a protector, and showed he would rather die trying to do that than take up the title of king in any self-serving, hollow way. So yes, PJ's "reluctant" Aragorn was different, but I think the core of the character--who's willing to risk his life again and again to protect his companions or the innocent, and above all to confront Sauron's evil--remains unchanged. At risk of speaking heresy, I actually think in a couple of ways--the scene where Aragorn resists the Ring's temptation at the end of Fellowship, the Extended Edition scene where Aragorn is singing the Lay of Luthien alone at night--PJ gives us a fuller and more emotionally stirring Aragorn even than the books do. TL;DR - PJ's/Viggo's Aragorn is a great one, equal to Tolkien's, who may rest in the mighty company of his ancestors without feeling ashamed.
It's the music and sounds. The visuals are easy, since it's based on medieval Europe and the descriptions are pretty clear, and we know what Tokien based it all on. But the music and sounds that were created for the films are absolutely tremendous. You cannot ever credit Howard Shore enough for what he created.
But you can't write good music if you're rushed or the script/the scene isn't inspiring. Which is what happens to John Williams in new Star Wars, the score can't save a bad script.
to be fair, no, visuals arent easy ;) for one the movies are based on late medieval, the books more on early to high medieval. plus it just looks right, because they listened to the right person to make (MASSIV) changes to costumes. we only got those very good costumes because they had an reenactor as an advisor (and listened to him), otherwise we would have gotten the typical fantasy armor/costume designs. especially with armor it helps if you ask someone who knows how that stuff works (even if there could be improvements still)
9:57 I'm so glad you pointed this out, especially with that wording: "uncomfortable" with the titanic virtue of LotR's heroes. I first encountered this observation through Master Samwise's video on Theoden, how the filmmakers cut him down to build him back up and give him a better arc for film. It makes you shiver when you experience the full weight of Tolkien's original characters, and it really makes you value what a paragon of virtue can do for a story in a different, and no less valid, way than a redeemed hero. Terrific essay 👏
One of my favorite quotes in the trilogy by far is Sams message to Frodo in 2 Towers, "That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.", I adapted the quote to read, "Theres a lot of good left in the world, and its worth fighting for", and made 2 shirts with the quote on them, gave the spare to my Step father who introduced me to the films as a kid.
To me, the LotR books is a true story driven masterpiece. It shows pretty "finished" characters reacting to (or facilitating) the happenings around them, their triumphs and failures, their flaws and virtues, their joy and sorrow without changing much throughout. On the other hand, the movies are a lot more character driven. We as the audience connect with the characters as we watch them grow and become the best (or worst) version of themselves as their experiences reshape them. While the book has mostly "static" great character archetypes, the movies made it a point to give even the supporting characters their own little arcs (like Gríma, Théoden, Faramir, Arwen, or even Denethor and Treebeard). They are different, but they are both great.
A well-done presentation that does not awkwardly avoid the topic of what faults lie in the Jackson films or how some criticisms leveled at RoP might also be sent towards the PJ films. In the end I heartily agree with your sense of what made the PJ films a success - that though they made changes they always came back to making the films with Tolkien's vision and no one else's. I only wish that TPTB at Amazon had the strength and integrity to follow along that same path.
Every time I learn something new about these films and how they were made I get a little emotional. This is what happens when your work is truly, deeply loved.
So, the long and short of it; it is beloved not because they simply stuck to the original script, but because they put a lot of thought, effort, and skill into making _good movies._ They _adapted_ the story, but changes were always _with a purpose_ - not just change for change's sake.
Exactly. And you can tell how much Peter, Fran, and Philippa loved and respected the source material. Even when they did make substantial changes. (Less so in The Hobbit movies, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.) You just don’t feel that level of diligence from the Amazon series.
I think the main problem with... media just being generally bad right now is too many layers of management stirring the broth with their smelly unwashed rods. Everything comes out as a weird homogenized mess like an AI prompt because it's filtered through too many people, most of whom don't know or care about the film beyond how it makes numbers move around
@@SafetyKitten the mostly slow pacing of the books is completely lost in the movies. The sense of time and distance is so important in Tolkien's books.
0:53 I mean, Legolas is relaying the words of the other elf in the book, so in that sense it is more of a translation/cutting out the middle man than wholly giving the line to another character.
As a fanatical Tolkienist, I have to confess that I had doubts about the feasibility of creating the movies. I was pleasantly surprised. Very entertaining and surprisingly close ( st least in spirit) to the books.
The entire cast was perfect for their roles. Tolkien would have wanted Lee portraying Gandalf, but as we have all seen, Lee was the ideal actor for Saruman and Mckellen the one for Gandalf.
I litteraly cannot think of anyone else that could have played Aragorn better than Viggo.... well apart from maybe arguably THE greatest actor og all time Danie Day Lewis but besides him NO ONE ELSE!
Clicked on this not recognizing the channel and expecting an uninteresting video echoing points I had heard already. Now in hindsight I shouldn't have been surprised to find another really insightful well edited video. Cheers to you!
man the biggest casualty of changing Aragorn into a reluctant heir is the character assassination of Isildur. i get that it isn't Isildur's story, but he was literally one of the greatest and most noble Men to ever live. he wasn't weak, he took the ring as weregild for his fallen father and brother. homeboy was literally on the way to Rivendell to give the ring to the elves with the assumption that they would attempt to destroy it.
As much as I love the books, Tolkien was a very religious person and defender of the monarchy, who also read a lot of old tales and myths his whole life. As such there is a lot of black and white thinking in these movies. I think having both Aragorn and Faramir have real character arcs of struggle and growth to get them were they need to be is such an improvement to the characters. Especially since the biggest lessons and emotional impacts never get lost in adaptation.
Great take, only one thing to add: Aragorn’s reluctance to take the throne, although not directly taken from the books, was directly taken from his worldview, which makes the movies even better for me. “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity […] The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.” - J. R. R. Tolkien
These are very specific examples, but the key for me is what this stems from.... Petter Jackson UNDERSTANDS Tolkien. He read it. He loved it. He got it. He was a genuine fan and at the helm of the adaptation. Using Tolkien's words whenever possible did capture that feel, but it could only be done by writers and director genuinely steeped in the books. It took love and understanding of Lord of the Rings to pull off what they did. Love was the magic ingredient
I think he did love the books, but I'm not sure he understood Tolkien. I think Tolkien probably would have disliked the movies, he was quite curmudgeonly and he had thought a LOT about everything in his books, so changing stuff very likely would have bothered him a lot, especially moving dialogue around between characters.
I re-read it (for the 15th time) a few months ago, and watched the movies right after. While the differences were more obvious, I still marveled at Jackson's work, because I was equally awestruck by both. I felt the spirit of Middle-Earth and the grandeur of the characters were in Jackson's vision (which ROP really did not achieve).
The core of the criticism that RoP receives is not that it changed what Tolkien wrote, but that both it and the writers behind it are disrespectful. Disrespectful to the master, his work, and the fans of it.
I love your videos so much. Your wording is just so eloquently beautiful yet straight to the point. You repeat your points towards the end as if to emphasize the main thesis statement of your analysis. Would love more tolkien videos!! Keep it up!!!
One line added that wasn’t in the books is “I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king.” That felt so much like Tolkien to me. It brought beautiful closure and impact for Boromir’s death.
Its criminal to qoute these words without following it with the next dialogue
"Be at peace, son of Gondor"
Sean Bean fought for those last words until they said he could say them.
One of the most touching additions to the dialogue was when Bernard Hill as King Theoden "No parent should have to bury their child". It's so simple, and it devastates me every time
Incredible actor and irreplaceable for his role. RIP Bernard Hill 🙏🏼
I always found the language slightly off for some reason. If that line had to be in I would have preferred more precise words such as 'No father should have to bury his son.' 'Or no father should have to bury his daughter' (if it had been a daughter) - would have been better.
absolutely bawling every time, and it wasn’t a Tolkien scene
Théoden is my favorite character. Such tragedy he has to carry around with him, and so much doubt in himself and the chances of his people. I feel Aragorn & Théoden did a lot to pull each other up from their own fears and uncertainties. Bernard Hill was remarkable and powerful in that role.
@@colinclark1396 I like that he said "child", as it means he's not merely grieving for himself, but as a King for all the slain children in his kingdom since Saruman's forces invaded it. He's showing empathy, concern, and lordship as he rightly should.
I'm surprised to see no comments talking about, arguably, the best addition to any book-adapted film: "I would have followed you my brother. My captain. My King."
Didn't know it wasn't in the book. It is the great line, i cry every time i hear that from Boromir.
I agree. The line reminds me of the Walt Whitman poem, O Captain! My Captain!
@@СерафимТоманов From memory, by the time Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli found Boromir in the book, he was already dead.
I’m not crying, you’re crying! 😭
To be fair, Boromir is probably the character that benefited the most of the adaptation.
In the book, Boromir is a lot less developped and "altruistic" ; he is mostly a way to show that the ring's power is especially potent on power-hungry people (even with good intentions).
The movie adds a lot of scenes showing both Boromir's compassion for mankind, his family, the halflings, etc. But also a sense of urgency, the idea that his people are in imminent danger without him.
One other change that Jackson made was at the very end, when the four hobbits are sitting in the local tavern in Hobbiton. The usual hubbub is going on all around them; and the four just look at each other: the know that the other hobbits could not possibly understand what they'd been through. My son who saw combat in Iraq told me that that is his favorite scene in the film, because it perfectly describes how veterans feel after they return home, knowing that the people they know and love cannot possibly understand what they've gone through. Brief as it is, it's a powerful scene that brings enormous depth to the movie.
Fantastic description!
I too am a veteran; my first conflict was Grenada, but I continued to serve, with a short break from 2000 to 2002. Four deployments post September 11th 2001, totaling more than 5 years in combat...
I too very much appreciate that particular scene.
God Bless your son, and all other veterans!
"How do you pick up the threads of an old life?"
Informed perhaps by Tolkien being a veteran - a veteran of battles more horrific than any seen prior to WWI. Battles in which he lost most of his childhood friends. You have to live it to know it and to write about it.
You've got four guys who practically went through hell and back to save the world, and the pub is going mad for the bloke who grew a big pumpkin.
I imagined this was a comment on what it must have been like to return to your small town or village after coming home from WW1
What I think is interesting is to compare Tolkien and his writings to Jackson and his movies.
Tolkien fought in a war that hit his homeland hard, he came home yet the war was still there, its effects still staining the land. That is reflected in the book's ending in the Scouring of the Shire. Compare this to Jackson, a Kiwi, whose homeland has sent boys to various wars and seen action, but those wars have never found their way to New Zealand, resulting in, as you mention, the folks at home unable to understand what you went through. This is reflected in the movie's peaceful ending, where the other hobbits are their usual selves in the tavern yet our heroic four can only just sadly smile to each other while in the middle of all the merry-making because they can relate to only each other any more.
I feel like the adding of reluctance to Aragorn's character arc probably reflects the difference between the modern attitude towards what makes a 'perfect' king, compared to the ideals Tolkien grew up with, or studied in history.
Yeah, today we're clearly uncomfortable with the idea that some people are simply entitled to ruling because of their blood. Meanwhile, Tolkien was an unabashed monarchist and superior bloodlines appear all over his work. It's no wonder a modern adaptation tries to lean into "the best people to lead are the ones who don't desire to lead" to soften that.
I wonder how modern this really is. There's a quote about this from Dumbledore, in which he suggests "those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it". From the time when Tolkien was alive, there's King George VI, a reluctant king of the British Empire.
@@ImVeryOriginal
Tolkien understood the danger of giving power to people who were not brought up to wield it and a simple look at recent (and especially not so recent) history is pretty good indication that he was right.
monarchs don't tend to be good leaders because of their bloodline, but because they were raised to be monarchs and taught to wield power responsibly.
next point is that even if a monarch turns out to be a tyrant, that is still only the greed of one tyrant that needs to be satisfied.
another huge advantage about a monarchy is that, if the monarch does fail their people, it usually only takes the brutal slaying of one individual to enact change because their successor will think twice about repeating the mistakes of a lynched predecessor.
lastly a monarch doesn't need to appeal to lobbyists to ensure they'll be able to continue a life of opulence once they're ousted from their elected position.
as opposed to a political system where the greed of an entire ruling party made up of individuals who have no bloody idea about how to wield power responsibly needs to be satisfied and where the death of one member of said party will change absolutely nothing about it.
@@windhelmguard5295 lol this mf unironically believes feudalism is good
@@ImVeryOriginal lol this mf unironically believes feudalism and monarchy are the same thing.
About Faramir, I also think we're just not interested in "perfect" characters anymore. To modern audiences (or at least to me) being tempted by the chance to earn everything he's ever wanted and then choosing not to at the last moment is far more heroic than never being tempted in the first place. It's also a nice parallel having him and Boromir tempted in the same way and showing that-despite what everyone thinks-when it matters most, he's the stronger of the two.
Faramir is interesting, because not being tempted by the Ring at all can be seen as imperfect itself: he's basically saying, "sure, I could use the Ring to save the people dying right now, but then I might enslave them or worse later, and that would be even worse."
The only way to justify that is faith; for Faramir and his men to have truly no fear of death, and thus, no need of the Ring's power. There's nothing wrong with that from a narrative point of view, since Gandalf is basically an angel and thus objective proof of divinity, but that also greatly cheapens their bravery compared to someone in the same circumstances in the real world.
“…and they sang as they slew for the joy of battle was on them…” is devastatingly metal.
Well, the Rohirrim are essentially land-dwelling vikings so, yeah 🤘😝
No wonder metal heads like it so much.
@@marbellaotaiza801
Saxons not Vikings
@@thodan467eh close enough
@@TheTuttle99 Not in middleearth
Your idea of the voice of Tolkien himself reading about the Rohirrim's charge, while we see the charge scenes from the movie, is the best moment of this video.
Bernard Hill delivered the lines so much better though - cuz he was a trained actor.
@@HandGrenadeDivisionit felt like Tolkien’s words was like a riddle or a charade, almost like the delivery of a song with his accent
@@HandGrenadeDivisionBernard Hill is ofcourse the better actor. But Tolkien delivering it himself from the best moment of the book(though I do prefer the moment before of "Rohan had come at last") is something super special.
@@HandGrenadeDivisiontolkien also sounded more like the radio announcers from the old days. With his cadence and pace of speaking. Makes sense given the time period he lived. Bernard Hill's performance was absolutely magnificent
It shows the book is vastly superior to the Jackson movies, and the charge of the Rohirrim is one of the few good scenes in them.
Honestly I like that Aragorn isn’t a perfect man in the movies, him being flawed and having emotional turmoil makes him more human (the very thing he’s running away from lol). I also think that, in turn, it presents him as an even more perfect king. A king who rules from a place of duty and necessity rather than pride and ambition.
Also,he had to work to become a king.His people trusted him way before he started to wear a crown,which is very important for the character and the plot.That's why Rohan soldiers were following him even they ,for ages,didn't like and trust Gondor.
I think Aragorn is not much less nuanced in the books, especially in the Appendices. He has doubts and fears and must accept heroically what is almost certainly a doomed quest and struggles with uncertainty about what decision to make or path to take. And this is a man nearly 100 years old, who spent decades traveling the world and fighting in Rohan and Gondor against their enemies. His journey was not easy. He didn't always know what to do. But he did his best and would continue to do so even when it seemed hopeless to do so.
Agreed. While the character beats are different, the emotional resonance for the audience is the same. Back in the day, someone thinking they should be king because they were born to it would be interpreted by the audience as nobility. Nowdays, that's conceit and scheming. We find it more noble if someone feels obliged to be king because they were born to it. The character detail is different, but it ends up at the same place in the esteem of the audience: nobility.
One thing that works well about the movies changes to Aragorn and Faramir is that, rather than being noble from the start, we see them overcome their self doubt and temptation, respectively. It speaks to the idea of growing a stronger moral character in the face of adversity. A fitting moral for an audience of teenagers.
I'm guessing in 87 years there was probably a time of doubt that Aragon had. But in the books, he had a hate-b0ner for Sauron and was eager to win Gondor back.
Changing the line from "golden shower" to "silver shower" was the right call 😂
Plus it otherwise sounds prettier
Thought about that too XD
It was a different (less hrny) time...
@@ano_nym lol
Why?
@@09cutie0pie You don’t need to know
One thing I noticed from Peter Jackson making the LOTR movies as well as Denis Villeneuve making Dune was they always deferred to the authors. They thought themselves as people adapting Tolkien or Herbert’s work the big screen, not them trying to put “their mark” or “their spin” on the story. So even when changes were made, they remained true to the spirit of the source material.
Agreed. Even with some of the more significant changes regarding Dune, Villeneuve saw it as a way to realize the themes Herbert was writing rather than purely his own ideas.
@@Rauruatreides Yup. The directors were just translating the work to a different medium.
This is in contrast to many other adaptations where the director or showrunner thinks they know better than the source material and therefore tries to make "their mark" on adaptation. And that usually leads to disaster.
I hated Denis Dune, and I am a huge book fan. He missed the mark so bad.
@@transformersrevenge9 No adaptation can please everyone unfortunately. All I can say is that my geezer dad who read the book as a teenager loved it and so did I. I thought they were very spiritually and aesthetically faithful.
@@transformersrevenge9 I am a fan of Frank Herbert's Dune saga as well, and I think Villeneuve's movies are great. I think they mostly focused on the right things, given that most of the side plots of the first book don't end up being that pertinent in the long run. The moody "fatedness" heightens some of the actual big themes (Paul's "terrible purpose", "Nietzsche goes to space").
I think they could have done without Chani slinking off into the desert by herself, and I'm a little worried about how they'll tie her back into the story for Dune Messiah, but we'll just have to wait and see.
I actually like the changes made to Faramir. Seeing how he’s been treated by his father, it’s only natural his instinct would be to seek his approval. And it doesn’t diminishes him as a hero in my opinion, because we’ve seen with Isildur, Smeagul and Boromir, just how easily the ring can corrupt. So Faramir struggling and overcoming the temptation is very heroic of him.
This!!! Book Faramir might not be tempted by the ring, but movie Faramir faces that temptation and is still one of the few on-screen characters to overcome it. It works well in the context of the films, if you're open to the chanage
I loved that.He was tempered not to reclaim the ring for himself,but for his father..and that was also before he saw with his own eyes what the ring is doing to Frodo.I actually loved every changes that Jackson and his team have made.I also loved his changes to Frodo.Being stabbed by morgul blade,there is no way he could ride a big horse(that he never did before)for six days by himself.It was more natural to be carried by an elf,who are by nature the best riders.
There is the idea that Faramir is supposed to represent humility and virtue, instead of simply be another person that fell and has redeem themselves. Faramir was not tempted by the ring because he is humble enough not to engage in a battle of will with the ring, knowing he will lose. He doesn't even let himself consider using the ring.
He is meant as an example of a person who doesn't fall. Of a person that didn't make this specific mistake. Of the idea that you don't always have to make a mistake and then make up for it.
@@NoName-mi8js I'm much less gracious towards book-Faramir once you discover that he's the character Tolkien self-identified as. He's basically Tolkien's self-insert, which makes his irreproachable virtue leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. I choose to believe that Tolkien didn't *intentionally* write him to be "better than you" because he believed himself to be morally superior - but it's hard to separate the two. Even if it were my best friend who wrote a book and told me he based this moral paragon character on himself, I'd have stern words.
The changes to movie-Faramir are great, and in the end, he still makes the right choice - the choice that his brother, the righteous and valorous Boromir could not. He still chooses what's right over his own longing and hope for the one singular thing he wants most: his father's love.
faramirs desire for the ring also holds a strong note of wanting to be more like his brother. hes not only in it for "power, glory, weapon, mwahaha", hes also in it to live up to his golden boy brother earn his fathers love for once.
I'd argue that the scouring of the shire fits the books theme of war touching everything, something Tolkien no doubt took from his own experiences. While the movies theme is closer to war heroes returning home with no one understanding what they went through, more akin to modern soldiers, and fitting the films theme of unity and hope overcoming tyranny to protect innocence.
The Scouring of the Shire was cut because PJ had no interest in telling Tolkien's story.
@reek4062 That's a pretty cynical view of things, especially given what PJ actually said about it.
@@reek4062Tell us you didn’t watch the video essay without telling us you didn’t watch the video essay.
I find it unnecessary to add that scene in the movies because the heroes have already went through enough in a lifetime. And suddenly adding a new plot point near the end of the movie I think was going to make the audience groan at the reappearance of Saruman and Grima. I kind of like how they ended the two of them at the towers showdown.
@@bertimusprime7900 I'm sure he had his excuses. But he was supposed to adapt Tolkien's story.
I think Grima's lines to Eowyn really work because it shows the level of manipulation he is capable of, he looks the way he does but can still get Eowyn almost giving in because he knows her and what is really going on with her and can worm his way in.
From a pure acting standpoint as well, it is one of the best deliveries in the trilogy. Brad Dourif poured everything into that.
@1047online He truly did. I remember watching him work and thinking: "Wormtongue truly is a vile bastard!"
It takes a special kind of talent to pull off the personality of a vile bastard, too.
One of my favorite scenes in the entire film series! Both of them give amazing performances here. Miranda Otto really conveys Eowyn’s depths of despair and shows that oh-so-brief second of “Maybe I should listen to him? I have nothing else…” before she rejects him utterly. He is left staring at the hand that was able to caress her face for the only time.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@kathyastrom1315 That is true! I just hated the idea of him and her possibly giving in to his manipulations. Ugh
Peter Jackson's genius is that he stayed as true to the original text as possible, and also used the two artists who best visualized Lord of the Rings to date (John Howe and Alan Lee) very effectively. That's why this film is more beautiful and artistic than today’s productions, even though technology is very advanced right now.
And give every character the arc,because,nobody stays the same after going through some life changing moment.Aragorn,in the book was boring to me.There he slways wanted to be king and acted as one.In reallity,he wasn't king..he was a refugee for almost 90 years,so he had to learn how to become a king,like in the movie.
Such a huge stark contrast to the method that Amazon is doing.
@@VesnaLukic-h8wtherin you show your lack of knowledge of Tolkien.
@@barneyboy2008and you, my friend are, another expert of Tolkien, I assume.I wonder only if you have studded him at the University in England or just a self-proclaimed one.
Must’ve been hella awkward in Helms Deep after Aragorn screamed “i shall die as one of them” with zero context outside Elvish
I think some of them understood some Elven words. Plus they were arming for the fight
But shit man, the trust you'd have had for the guy who said that would've been critical for one's courage.
Think that was the point.
@@Theomite They all would know who Aragorn is. He was a legend among the people. After all he did serve with the boy's father?
@@MasterGhostf At least in the film, Eowen didn't know who he was exactly. So I think after a few decades memories and tales can fade.
Honestly, if the books were made into movies verbatim, I fear they would not engage any but the most hardened Tolkien aficionados. Would that be a bad thing? No, of course not, but his books have reached even more people with the movies, and our love for his world has multiplied. I can live with that (and I loved the books and the movies).
yes, people fall asleep to lotr movies and say they're boring as they are now, if they were closer to the books they'd stand no chance. Besides, Tolkien isn't a perfect writer, its not the worst thing in the world to make changes imo
Considering the return on investment is important for the investor. If it would have been too long, that would also have cost much more and lesser people watching it, was too risky for sure. It was already a risk and very unusual for the film industry, the way they did it.
Well, that begs the question. Do we just make art now to satisfy the lowest common denominator or do we make art to express our selves and our minds? Tolkien's books are so highly regarded because he made what HE wanted, he wrote the stories HE wanted to tell. He certainly didn't do it to please any specific demographic, I don't believe. And that goes for all great works of art. So, if we're now only making films to engage the most populated demographic is there even a point anymore in making them?
@@jase276 Good question. I know there are a lot of people who only like art (any form of art) as long as it isn't mainstream. Perhaps because they feel it isn't actually good art if it is valued by many, maybe because they are snobs, or maybe they just think art needs to be interpreted by people who know what art is? I can't say what is right, but you are right that he made it because he wanted to. However, it was also an attempt to make something similar to The Kalevala but for Britain (as far as I know). This suggests he wanted people to actually read it. Why publish it if not? He probably would not have liked the movies, and I do get why some people do not. It is a matter of taste and principles too.
If the movies were made for Tolkien aficionados then I would have watched them more than twice over the past 20 years. I can’t even get through them on airplanes they’re so bad. And the LOTR books were massive sellers before the movies; the people who they were meant found them somehow.
Excellent job. You expressed something really subtle but important which took my breath away with "Great stories are worth preserving in some way because they have something important to say ... [nowadays] more common is the belief that old stories need to be *fixed* or to just see them as IP that can serve as a springboard for new and better ideas." I reckon this describes a huge but unconscious trend in movie-making and sequel-making. It sheds light on the awkward self-consciousness and cynicism dominating many blockbusters.
You are correct except for the fact that the trend is not unconscious but very much wanted. They are ushering in a new era of social and moral norms you may just not fully realize it yet.
That's because the people who are making movies now have no connection to the source material by blood or culture.
You think this is unconscious?
There is also a great rejection to have sincere storytelling since studios fear they might come off as corny. Comic Book movies are the greatest offenders in this aspect, doing the impossible to have a character in every scene pointing out how silly some of the concepts are.
In the book, Gandalf was pained rejecting the ring when Frodo offered it to him but did reject it. Galadriel also was able to reject it but with more obvious temptation than in the books. Boromir failed in the face of temptation in both the movies and the books and whereas Aragorn succeeded in both. Then in the books Faramir casually rejected it. It made everyone else's temptation a greater weakness. I liked that Faramir had to fight it to and made his victory all the greater. Remember in both the movies and the books Frodo ultimately failed.
Agreed. One point that I don't think is brought up often enough is that Book-Faramir resisted the temptation of the One Ring more easily than Movie-Aragorn. Of course Movie-Faramir couldn't have been quite as strong as Movie-Aragorn, let alone stronger.
Agree. I felt that Tolkien's Faramir was kind of a "Mary Sue" type character. He was too perfect in the face of temptation. Jackson gave Faramir a plausible emotional reason why he would be tempted by the Ring. Faramir wanted the respect and love of his father, who clearly favored Boromir, his eldest son, over Faramir, his youngest son. The audience could relate to that temptation and feel empathy for Faramir. When Faramir releases Frodo to continue his quest, you could feel that Faramir "passed" his test of temptation, just like Galadriel did hers. All in all, Jackson's Faramir kept the tension with the Ring as a source of temptation that had to be destroyed and moved the plot forward.
@@tmbarton1961Book-Aragorn too is almost too perfect. And I, though a Tolkien fan for many years, appreciated the way the movies gave him and arch and a more compelling motivation than "I have to become king if I want to get the girl".
BUT
I never suffered the changes they made to Faramir, and NOT because they made him more prone to temptation: people seem not understand that it's not that the problem, but the way he behaves: rude, ruthless, even brutal with Gollum. He doesn't have nothing of the honorable man we meet in the books. They had Galadriel tempted way more than in the books, but she was still the noble and mysterious lady she is in the books; they could have done the same for Faramir.
@@Laurelin70 I didn't have a problem with the way Jackson's Faramir treated Gollum. Gollum violated one of their laws and he resisted arrest. In the books, Aragorn wanted to kill Gollum after Gandalf had finished interrogating him. Gandalf rejected that because he felt that Gollum may have a purpose in the fate of the Ring.
@@tmbarton1961 Especially since they didnt know who or what Gollum is and if he told Sauron or any orcs how to get to the secret base it would be a massive blow to Gondor's operations.
This movie is packed with emotion, we see this everytime, when Frodo speaks to his friends, the way Aragorn treats frodo with care and respect, the way Gandalf talks to the hobits as a parent trying to give his kids a lesson.
I wonder whether Gandalf is with Nambla; it probably would be an improvement though
We also see this every time Frodo speaks to his friends and the way Aragorn treats Frodo with care and respect...
The books are SO detailed and lore-packed that frankly I'm amazed that, after so much had to be condensed and cut away, the trilogy still turned out to be a masterpiece very much in-keeping with the spirit of Lord of the Rings. There aren't many movies that I return to time and again, but I do a yearly watch of LOTR.
They are nothing like the books im afraid.
@@barneyboy2008lol
I also think that Faramir was changed because of a themes of the Two Towers. It's the movie that clearly asks if there is any hope left for the World of Men. Either for their Kings, their peasants (that's why they are called to War), and their Heroes. It's the movie where Aragorn embraces the World of Men, and that shows him that men aren't weak as he thougth. Faramir resisting the ring *in the end* after the battle of Hornburg makes sense as a conclusion. We showed you: men Can resist the evil or Saruman, but to the Ring too in the end. Hope lives. That's why I am ok with Faramir's character in the movies
Agree. Faramir was still portrayed as a noble man by Jackson, but in the movies, Jackson, saw what Tolkein did not see, Faramir as a son who wanted the love of his father, a father who was angry about losing his eldest son, Boromir. In the book, Tolkien tells us why Denethor distrusted Faramir. Faramir was educated by Gandalf and Denethor did not trust Gandalf. To keep the suspense strong about the temptations of the Ring, Jackson made the right call for Faramir to be tempted to take the Ring to his father so that he could gain his father's love and trust. That's a powerful emotion that the Ring would plausibly exploit.
@@tmbarton1961 I made this comment on another post, but Tolkien, being a Classics scholar probably made his heroes more Homeric than modern: one-note and unchanging, heroic for their unflinching resolve and unflappable fortitude. That kind of character is dramatic but not 3-dimensional. So I think Tolkien didn't bother to analyze the psyches of his characters or maybe even bother with Campbell or Jung's theses (he probably would've rejected them entirely had he done so), whereas Jackson did. I think that's why the film versions stand out all these years later: we can see where they're coming from because Jackson gave them the nuance that Tolkien didn't.
Changing Faramir does generally fit with the movies' efforts to make the characters more human and 3-dimensional, but I'm still not a huge fan of it. Faramir's arc ended being about the same as Boromir's: trying to take the Ring, then regretting/rethinking it at some point. The main difference is that Faramir lived. Otherwise it's hard for me to see the difference.
To be fair, Faramir is always in someone's shadow. In the books, he was basically Aragorn-lite. In the movies, he's Boromir-lite. He kind of struggles to stand out as his own character, I think.
@@LittleMezzoBird I prefer to think of film!Faramir as being a better Boromir. Maybe not a better warrior, (though he's formidable enough it his own right, as his men are completely committed to him,) but a better person in general, capable of the kind of hope that was a central theme of the entire series.
@@thing_under_the_stairsIn the books I see him as the better Boromir. In the movies it was lost on me. It didn't made him more 3 dimensional for me, I just couldn't understand his decisions at all. I think I watched the movies more times than I read the books now and I'm still just confused what the extra scenes with Sam, Frodo and Faramir are supposed to tell me.
It's one of the few things I don't like about the movies.
“We live in an era where every hero is torn down.” That line stings man.
Great video btw. You earned a sub.
@@MemphisFloyd John Connor, Luke Skywalker, and Indiana Jones are the biggest and most famous examples that come to mind.
John's example is perhaps the worst of the three, in my opinion. In the first five films (and the TV show), John was the most important character, the one everyone is either trying to protect or kill. He was the literal savior of the human race, the one destined to stop Skynet and guide humanity to a new age of peace. Yet, in 'Dark Fate,' the film literally murders him in the first two minutes so a woman can take his place to fight against an enemy that's just Skynet with a new coat of paint. It would have been better to show a middle-aged John trying to find his way through life having never become who he was meant to be, then standing up to lead the fight against an enemy he has never faced and doesn't know how to defeat, or passing on everything he's learned to someone else before dying in a blaze of glory saving humanity as he was always meant to.
With Luke and Indy, both of them are shown to be old, broken, bitter men who have lost everything they cared about and are just waiting to die. And instead of relying on their experience, determination, and willpower to solve their problems and find happiness again, they are instead guided by younger women who are better than them at pretty much everything, and ultimately rely on them to finally come back from the brink.
Fans don't want to see their childhood heroes get kicked to the curb so someone younger, hotter, and more skilled can take their place. We want to see our childhood heroes adapting to old age, going on one last adventure, and ending their stories on a high note, and Hollywood has consistently failed to do that again and again.
@@Leprechaunproduction Well put. The destruction of heroes is an important part of conquering and subjugating a culture. We are in the midst of an ideological and cultural war. The message: Tear down your old statues, abandon your old gods and heroes, and embrace your new masters.
You mean male heroes are being torn down not all heroes; The war on masculinity and positive male role models by the powers that be. Female heroes on the other hand, aren't being torn down but they are having their inherent female traits replaced with masculine traits because feminists and leftists do not consider female traits & agency to have any merit and want to warp women to become more like men in an effort to subvert society; hence the epitome of a strong woman is a woman that behaves like a man in every way, creating insufferable tokenized female characters that put off the viewing audience to the point that the masses now outright avoid watching movies starring female protagonists ( Rings of power Galadriel vs Tolkien's/Peter Jacksons Galadriel).
@@Leprechaunproduction try real-world examples now
@@Leprechaunproduction Well said. And for a stellar example of doing the reverse of this, we got the much-loved Top Gun: Maverick. Turns out giving people what they want instead of what "you" (these writers/etc) want gives better results, who ever would have guessed...
“This should be Tolkien’s work, not ours”, is an idea more writers should use in these modern times. Some themes transcend time and space. Great video!
In short, there may have been changes to portrayal of the story, but the *spirit* of the story remained as true and faithful as could be.
Nothing is more beautiful to me than Tolkien's later description of Minas Tirith given to Boromir as dialogue much earlier in Fellowship. It conveys so painfully the way Boromir saw his home, in his heart, and how he carried it with him. And if anything, it makes it more significant because in that way, it is communicated to Aragorn.
Something that should be the standard for any adaptation of a beloved story, but seems to be increasingly ignored.
I don't know. The spirit is pretty anti-war and, as mentioned in this video, can you be faithful to it with a bunch of cool battle scenes?
@@yllejord Well...ultimately yes, of course. Because even insofar as Tolkien was shaped by the horrors of the fields of France to some extent, in his short experience of WW1, he was also strongly, and passionately a proponent of standing against and overcoming evil. And he knew sometimes that would inevitably involve a fighting in ideological, philosophical, and physical terms. The books involve many great literal conflicts on the field of battle.
@@yllejord I mean, compare how Frodo looks before war, and after war. Sure, there's cool action sequences, but man, war is rough.
"We had no interest whatsoever of putting our junk... our baggage into these movies."
-Peter Jackson
If only all other producers/directors/creatives thought this way about long standing stories instead of using them as an excuse to force feed us their fanfics.
I think it can be done, but it's like changing a recipe. You have to understand what you're doing - why the onions are cut in that way, or why you stir it every 2 minutes instead of 2 1/2. If I order lasagna, I would expect to get lasagna; but if it's described on the menu as lasagna with some changes, I'd be willing to order that too.
and then he did the hobbit films....
@@jorbdan6305 The problems with the Hobbit trilogy were more a product of studio interference than anything Jackson did. Hell, he didn't even want to be involved -- he was brought in last minute after del Toro was fired from the project.
@@shalomamigos On the other hand, if I order lasagna and I get salmon, I'm going to be very upset.
@@jorbdan6305 The Hobbit films are pretty terrible, yes, but I think the only reason they weren't a complete disaster is Jackson. Take a look at some of the behind the scenes stuff from those movies. The studio (who was responsible for the decision to make it another trilogy) brought in Jackson last minute to replace del Toro. Instead of 3-4 years of prep like he had for LotR, Jackson had weeks. He even said that it was somewhat common for him to send everyone to lunch so that he could plan out the scene they would film when everyone came back. Like, what? It's amazing that the movies made any sense at all. IMO the studio trashed the Hobbit, and Jackson salvaged what he could.
The original LOTR films combined are the greatest trilogy ever made. Every film provided so many iconic moments and added new dynamic layers to the ongoing quest of destroying the cursed ring which all led to interesting character developments and eventually a satisfying climax. The cinematic success and critical response to all three films is still unparalleled to this day.
"Nowadays people see old stories need to be fixed" probably mentioned 100 tims already but thats so true!! People not understanding what made a story or character special and thinking their "modern" sign of the times take is better than a story that's transcended multiple cultures
I don't think people really think this, only a small minority of people who have the power.
@@Hero_Of_Old Agreed its not people ... its mainly Writers, especially writer that take on existing worlds /franchises ...
Arrogance.
It's such arrogance. You think you're a better writer than Tolkien? Not just Tolkien but his best work.
This is just an urge humans have. We’ve been telling and retelling the same stories for thousands of years. Always changing the bits we want and keeping others. Shit, look at how many different revisions the Christian bible has. And that just since the invention of writing. A lot of those stories were told for ages before we even had writing.
Oh boy, Pirates of the Carribean next? In the past few years more and more people have realized how incredible that trilogy actually was. Very few movies have this many characters, that all have their own motives and act on their own!
I mean, its alright? I loved them as a kid but 2-3 are just OKAY, they arent some great movies by an means. The 1st one is still great though.
@@barkley8285 The character dynamics in the second and third movie are extremely good.
One might just gloss over them as classic action, adventure, pirates, etc. movies, but the writing is actually very good. And since other things like visuals, sound design and music are of a good quality too, you get a really good package.
There is not a whole lot of bad stuff to say about them, save maybe that their existance was a huge reason why "Master and Commander" never got their sequels - something that "The Return of the King" is too blame for too
@@racernatorde5318. Or as i'd like to call them"yet another thing Doug Walker is wrong about"!
@@barkley8285. You're sounding an awful lot like Doug Walker, please stop it! From what I heard mortal kombat's 3D midway era was basically like the Pirates trilogy.
Definitely prefer it to the LOTR.
"It should be Tolkien's film, not ours!" And this is fundamentally why Amazon's adaption fails.
And also The Hobbit. Unfortunately, Jackson didn't keep that same attitude for that trilogy as he did for LotR.
I always loved having elves at Helm's Deep. It echoes the Last Alliance and gives the elves some last on-screen contribution.
Reminding viewers of elves, and especially of Arwen, for longer than the book gives was a good call.
Nah, that was lame. And it makes no sense: the last alliance was between the descendants of the Noldor and and the descendants of the Numenoreans. Silvan elves and "lesser" men like the Rohirrim never had an alliance so there's nothing to fulfill.
I dont mind it and supposedly Jackson put them in to convey that the elves fought their own battles in the war which they did. The Dead Army sweeping the field in the last battle is unforgivable though and destroys the main theme of the story that men are now responsible for saving Middle Earth on their own accord.
@@ColoradoStreaming so men getting help from the dead, bad, but men getting help from the elves, good? LoL
It would've been somewhat respectable had he included things mentioned but not developed in the text, like Celeborn attacking Dol Guldur.
@@marbellaotaiza801 The difference is the Elves supported the men at Helm's deep but they didnt just magically win the battle like the Dead Army did.
@@ColoradoStreaming the non-difference is that both are figments of the screenwriters imagination as none of that happens in the books...
I think a big difference between Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Rings of Power adaptation is that although LotR is different, you can still feel the heart of Tolkien. You can still see the main story beats. There might not be Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel might have been swapped for Arwen, but The Council of Elrond still happens. Gandalf's fall still happens. The Battle of Pelannor Fields still happens. And in the end, even with removals/swaps, it still tells a coherent and complete story.
Whereas with Rings of Power, other than the names of characters and settings, there is not a _single_ story beat from ANYTHING that Tolkien wrote. Galadriel wasn't a warrior, her going back to Valinor before she "passed the test" is a BIG lore contradiction, she never tried to swim across an ocean and run into Sauron on a raft, Galadriel wouldn't have been deceived by Sauron at all, there were no -Hobbits- Harfoots at the time, Galadriel never went to Numenor, Mordor wasn't created through a rube-goldberg machine, Mithril wasn't created by lightning striking a tree that an elf and balrog were fighting under, and the three Rings being forged before the Seven and Nine AND with Sauron's help is ABSOLUTELY lore shattering. I mean seriously, I can't think of one, not one, story beat that was anything that Tolkien put to paper.
"The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all.” (J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Rings, "Concerning Hobbits").
"(Galadriel) was then of Amazon disposition” (The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien, Letter 348). Tolkien only and exclusively used the term amazon for warrior women, the early Valie Measse, Haleth _and_ Galadriel. He explicitely said that e.g. (the final version of) Eowyn was not an amazon.
"Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she (Galadriel) fought fiercely against Fëanor in defence of her mother’s kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Fëanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could."(J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales,The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’)
"She (Galadriel) looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs" (J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, The History of Galadriel and Celeborn’). This quote is not only Second Age, it comes directly from the time of the Forging of the Rings of Power.
@@anni.68 That may be true but I would still argue that even if they may have had some roots in what Tolkien alluded to, he still didn't write directly any scenes that were reflected in the show. For one thing, even if Tolkien described Galadriel as "Amazonian" she still wasn't a girl boss military commander who blindly led her soldiers across Middle Earth for Eru only knows how many centuries, not caring one iota about their health or well being. And she may not have known that Annatar was Sauron per se, but she still sure as heck didn't trust him, especially given how Tolkien described her as the most perceptive of the elves. And while Hobbits existed, Tolkien didn't describe them as psychotic murder hobos who will leave their own behind at the drop of a hat and yet "not forget them." He didn't consider them important enough to include at all (especially not happening to meet -Gandalf- one of the five Wizards who aren't supposed to show up until the third age and Rings of Prime takes place in the second age) And true, we don't know how Mordor was created, but come on, a rube goldberg machine and an exploding volcano with 1000 degree F pyroclastic flow that somehow didn't kill everyone who was hit by it? Tolkien would have written something _vastly_ more intelligent than that. Same goes for the Mithril thing, even if one was to come up with some convoluted way Mithril was created or that it was "tied to the elves lifeforce" (which is more or less conflicting with Tolkien's description of the elves lives being tied to that of Arda, NOT mithril), surely one could come up with something better than "an elf and a balrog fought under a tree that was struck by lightning and that's how mithril was formed." Even if it's apocryphal, it's still stupid, and it's not reflected in Tolkien's work that their life force is tied to it. And I'll give you that Sauron already left before they technically made the Rings, but it still could be inferred that he might have had more of an influence on them that he should, as well as the fact that they made the three before the others, which still contradicts the orders of Tolkien's events. The three rings were made in response to the One, which was made after the seven for the dwarves and nine for men. So having them made first is silly, and opposite of what Tolkien wrote.
Even if there are traces (and very thin traces) of Tolkien's ideas in Rings of Prime, it still stands that the whole overarching story and all of its plot points did _not_ happen in Tolkien's works. And people can argue all day as to the show's quality on it's own (for my money, it's an absolute stinker), but as an adaptation, it's abysmal. And I'm not necessarily against adaptations doing things differently, which is why I like Jackson's films so much, even though I prefer the book. But they're not really adapting anything with the Amazon show. They're taking some Tolkien-esque ideas and writing their own story with it.
@anni.68 "No Elf, neither *Galadriel* nor Celebrimbor and his Gwaith-i-Mírdain, had any chance against his powers of deception"
Oof, you just contradicted Tolkien's text in one sentence.
What I gleamed from your argument is that you are stating Amazon is justified in making additions/changes to the Legendarium by citing material like The Peoples of Middle-Earth; which they don't have the rights to; or claiming 'Tolkien wrote so very little about this age' which is completely untrue.
The thing is though that it *doesn’t remain faithful or respectful of Tolkien’s themes*, and if those aren’t the heart I don’t know what is?
The PJ Trilogy deviates from the structure, characterization and themes of the original novel all the time. It’s telling its own story, heavily inspired by the novel but clearly separate from it in hundreds of ways big and small - and not only in ways that make it more easily accessible to modern audiences, like making Arwen more of a character and giving Aragorn a bunch of self-doubt, but also in ways that truly break Tolkien’s whole theme at absolutely pivotal moments like Frodo pushing Gollum into the Cracks of Doom rather than the eucatastrophe of Gollum slipping in all on his own. Like forget elves eating mithril or whatever - if Tolkien saw that Gollum thing he’d spin so fast in his grave that he’d create a black hole.
(Despite this they’re still great movies! I absolutely love them, you can love them too.)
When people say stuff like ‘the PJ films kept the story, characters and themes of the novel consistent, which is why it’s beloved by the fanbase, but ROP actively destroys those themes, which is why the fanbase hates it’ you can maybe understand why people get suspicious about your understanding of the OG novels (which btw I’m not saying you didn’t read, because you may have), because everything about that statement is wrong - the PJ films weren’t consistent in those ways at all, so that can’t be why the fanbase loves them. It’s like saying ‘I love the sky because it’s such a nice shade of green’. I think you may be confusing good filmmaking and storytelling (which the movies have in spades) with faithfulness to the material (which the movies have in small trowelfuls).
In all honesty the most common critique seems to center on ROP being fanfiction. You can absolutely like and dislike things on whatever criteria you choose - I just think you should remain consistent. And if being fanfiction is enough of a reason to hate something, then I’ve got some terrible news for you about such incredible works as The Aeneid and 50 Shades of Gray and Paradise Lost - these are all fanfictions as well, and I’m afraid you’ve got to hate them too. Personally I think it’s best to critique a piece of storytelling primarily as a story, not as a specific type of medium.
When we get to that - the actual storytelling of ROP - that’s when I think we get to ths real stuff that’s actually worthwhile to talk about. And we can absolutely disagree there - but we can agree too! I think ROP has some significant flaws that I’m hoping are ironed out. Im hoping to Eru for that mithril thing to be a red herring lol.
That said, ROP also has some really great stuff that engages with Tolkien on a truly deep level, like grappling with the problem of orcs having souls and not just being mindless robots our heroes can slaughter without moral consequences (a problem that Tolkien himself was aware of and never fully resolved, and which the PJ adaptation didn’t touch).
ROP also goes into the way that Sauron *actively thinks he is doing good and can attract people to his cause on that basis*, which Tolkien was explicit about - Sauron thinks he’s the good guy and can actually make a compelling (though wrong) case for this, especially in the Second Age. Again, the PJ films don’t touch this with a ten-foot pole, unsurprisingly so because there’s a pervasive and mistaken belief in pop culture that Tolkien’s method is uncomplicatedly black and white. In reality it’s far from that, and while there are good and bad actions every character has a combination of both motivations within them - just like in real life. ROP gets my respect for engaging with the mythos on that level.
I’m not gonna defend everything in there. ROP deviated from the source material in some ways that I don’t really like, but it also fleshed out a period in Middle Earth’s history that was just bare bones before and that’s really cool to see on screen - and it’s something we can never get outside of a fanfiction either. That kid’s probably going to turn into a Nazgûl and we get to understand why he would even if we don’t agree with it, and that’s absolutely cool and has the potential to explore some fantastic moral quandaries, and I think Tolkien would really appreciate that approach to adapting his work (despite the fact that o think he’d hate most of pretty much any adaptation we’ve seen so far).
Anyway, that’s me.
@@jaceyking47 Maybe you're forgetting that the RoP folks are making a series that happens IN THE GAPS of what Tolkien wrote. OF COURSE they didn't happen in Tolkien's works. But what was Elendil up to until he shows up in Tolkien's works? Isildur? What were Elrond and Gil-Galad up to in between the scenes we see? WE DON'T KNOW. So the writers are filling that in. There are definitely things in there, and will be things, that Tolkien wrote, but he spent very little time on the Second Age. I feel like there is so much you're missing here. I've watched RoP enough times to see the ways in which it absolutely connects to Tolkien's works. Look, you hate RoP? That's fine. But you've only seen a little of one season of a 5-season story. Much is yet to happen. And the showrunners have repeatedly talked about how much they love and respect Tolkien and his works. So have many of the actors. I think a lot of people have their knickers in a twist over RoP because they weren't going to give it a chance from the get-go. Warrior Galadriel, oh no! This is shit!
No. It is not. And Season 2 is going to be epic.
I always appreciated the changes to Aragorn and Faramir. Your comment about how making Aragorn reluctant inadvertently makes it seem that a perfect king should be reluctant I always thought was the point. It makes it all the more clear that Aragorn isn't entitled, arrogant, or power hungry. Sure, he was never any of those things, but when you have time for fewer words to characterize someone, it helps to use signposts that tell you what a character is like, and by making Aragorn reluctant to take the throne, it shows us clearly that he's an honorable man who isn't shouldering the responsibility of the crown lightly but rather that he's doing it because it's necessary and because he truly is the best person for it. As for Faramir, I think I'll just defer to Paarthurnax from Skyrim: "What is better? to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" Obviously Faramir was not evil by nature, but the point is that, much like Aragorn, seeing Faramir struggle with the temptation but ultimately overcome it paints him in an even more noble light than if he were just apparently perfect from the beginning. And even besides all of that for both characters, this just gives the two of them character arcs instead of having them be static the entire story while still staying true to the original characterization by having those arcs end on how they were intended to be, and that's just always going to be a more compelling thing to see happen.
I might be in the minority here but I’m glad that they didn’t include the scouring of the shire in the film. After having the epic climax in the war of the ring and defeating Sauron it would just seem anticlimactic and underwhelming to include it. Almost like doing a side quest after completing the main story of a game. And plus it would have added at least another 30 to 45 minutes to an already long film . So obviously sacrifices had to be made to ensure the film was properly paced.
I understand it’s significance it had in the books but I think it was a nice touch to have the four hobbits return home and seeing that life for the other hobbits of the shire still remained the same and that they were so cut off from the outside world they had no idea that their lives were in danger or could even comprehend the intense journey that the four had gone through. It Also was a good way to show how each of the four hobbits suffered PTSD in their own way while trying to return to their old lives after the experiences they went through. It was rather fitting to show that the hobbits would never be the same again after their journey. It’s a good representation of what soldiers in the military experience when they return home after facing the horrors of war and struggle to re-enter society and into civilian life. Which I’m sure Tolkien of all people would appreciate and understand.
Yeah I feel that Peter Jackson actually improved on Tolkein's work.
I agree. The main story is over so some more soft handing imagery showing they change is better for the movie.
I never like the whole every soldier suffer from PTSD. It is a terrible stereotype and a worse trope that writer lean on too much.
Most people fail to realize the vast difference between prose and cinema. Pacing, for one, is almost opposite between books and movies. A film must contain all plot and character development within a couple of hours or so. A book allows a reader to take weeks, if they wish, to digest the story. They are utterly different mediums, as much different as music is to painting.
@@randomusernameCallin Huh...my father (a veteran of Vietnam) and my grandfathers (WW2 veterans) all related that they found the quiet, reflective silence of the four hobbits in the Green Dragon deeply moving, as it represented the inability for veterans to "go home again" among civilians who cannot understand their experiences.
@@randomusernameCallin Weird to call it a stereotype or a trope when it is drawn from the author's lived experience, and it's not "an every soldier has ptsd" thing when a crucial part of Frodo's suffering is that his suffering was unique among the hobbits. The contrast between Frodo's mental state and that of Merry and Pippin is important, war changes soldiers in different ways.
I pulled up TH-cam, saw this video, and exclaimed out loud, "Hey! It's you!"
Welcome back, man! Always look forward to one of your videos!
As someone that casually read the books a long time before the movies came out I was very pleasently surprised to notice some of the many details you are talking about! Every time I rewatch the movies I found a new detail and now thanks to your video I will pay even more atention to them. Great great video!
That scene with Tolkien’s words with the visual adaptation was pure art, eager to see your next video man!
I cried. That scene always tears me up, but hearing Tolkien himself (as I presume) read it was just great.
@@NemisCassanderIt is from professor Tolkien. He was even suspicious of this new technology so he prayed on it before using it.
You can search it up the original by searching Tolkien narrating Ride of the Rohirrin
I think a notable difference between PJ's adaption and many others is that while they still made changes from the source, the changes they made were by and large out of consideration for *translating* Tolkien's words, world, and story to a new medium (film). I don't feel like they saw themselves as *enhancing* or *updating* what he wrote, as is too often the case nowadays.
And those changes were mostly fitting into the rest of the story. Many movies make changes, but don't adjust anything and then characters or story arcs make no sense anymore
PJ made a translation of the story.
The Jackson team may've massaged the lore and canon and took their liberties.... but man they did it so damned good.
One of the main things that work in books but not in movies is the amount of characters the ring comes across without them being really tempted:
Isildir is on his way to give up the ring to wise (to destroy), Tom Bombadil plays with the ring, Faramir would not even pick it up, in addition to Bilbo, Sam and Frodo offering up the ring.
When conveying the corrupting power of the ring, you can't in a movie have half the characters give it up willingly or even play with it. In the books, there is more room for many character's perspectives and more inner debate with textual context.
Gandalf backing up from it like it's radioactive speaks volumes about just how dangerous it is. If the Merlin of your story is afraid, then you KNOW you'd better be terrified.
Hard enough to make a piece of jewelry scary onscreen as it is.
@@SoUncivilized414 Indeed, and the scary Sauron voice is best use sparingly to not let the audience get used to it.
Personally, I'm still firmly in the belief that the first half of Fellowship was the most disjointed rambling pointless part of the entire story. It was just wacky dangerous adventures the Hobbits were going through on their way to Bree, when Lord of The Rings was kind of going on like The Hobbit. Tom Bombadil and the whole mess on the Barrowdowns had no impact on the later story whatsoever, and if it had been included in the movies would have just confused everyone. I adore worldbuilding, but I also prefer when it has a point.
When I tell people about the lore that was left out of the movies, I tell them about the Scouring of the Shire, about Sam planting the mallorn tree, about the real fate of Saruman, about Merry and Pippin becoming proud (and very tall!) knights of Rohan and Gondor, about Aragorn's death and Arwen's withering away, about how Sam travels to Valinor and at length so too do Legolas, and Gimli with his crystal that contained three hairs of Galadriel, about how the heirs of the Red Book of Westmarch wrote the story that became the books once translated by Tolkien after he received it through the fourth wall.
I don't mention silly old Tom Bombadillo, with his blue coat and his boots of yellow.
@@Yonkage-ik5qb While I have some similar feelings about the start of the fellowship, nothing Tolkien wrote was pointless. Sometimes the meaning was buried outside of the core of the novel.
For the example of the Barrowdowns, the swords that were recovered there by the hobbits were forged and enchanted by ancient men specifically to do battle with the Witch King and his ilk. Had Merry struck the Witch King with any other blade it would not have wounded him so.
It's part of what I love so much about the writing, though I can understand why others disagree, and why some of it's unsuitable for adaptation.
Friendly reminder that excellent fan cuts of the Hobbit movies exist and that if you have given up on the trilogy, you may want to check them out.
While there is a lot of junk in these movies, there is also a lot of stuff that is on par with the Lord of the Rings movies and if you filter out most of the bad stuff, you are left with a pretty good movie
Nothing wrong with that trilogy 🤷🏼♀️
The maple cut and m4 are fantastic.
@@notjustanother3191
I have watched one of those and it was pretty great except the tone/pacing of the Unexpected Party felt off without the prologue.
Honestly, if you ignore the love triangle bits, they're pretty decent movies. My primary problem with them is how I think they fail to transition from "light-hearted children's movie" in the first movie to "extremely serious prelude to the LOTR trilogy" by the third, when I don't think the books were really written that way.
Extended edition Battle of the Give Armies has some fantastic funny/action moments with that dumb war cart that I just love.
@@LoganChristianson That's exactly the kind of scene that fans did NOT like. It's the hollywood approach to doing action scenes and it's just as unbearable as bollywoods ridiculous stuff.
I don't think it would have worked to have the movies to be as light hearted as the book, because than you would have a massive contrast to the LotR movies and since both are life action movies with some identical casts, identical scenery and so on, this would have been very jarring
The scene at the end where Tolkien is reading about the Rohirrim's charge over the movie scene caught me completely off guard. I started crying and couldnt stop, which did not happened to me for the past 10 years or so, I feel so much better now, thank you.
WE'RE BACK BABY ! The Lord of the Rings movies set up a quality reference for generations to come. Truly a masterpiece of a trilogy
Only the theatricals are a masterpiece. The extended editions are bloated and convoluted. And pack too much humor.
@@DestinyAwaits19I would actually say the opposite - the Extended versions are how the movie should have been in the first place. It adds so much detail, adds so much to the journey that seemed lost in comparison to the books … Watching the extended versions simply can‘t be undone - after it, she „short“ version simply feels lacking …
@@arneczool6614 Yes. There are scenes left out in the theatricals. Perhaps important ones. But to that I would say they won't be missed. They have enough scenes to tell the story, and get the point across.
The extended editions take the perfect pacing of the movies and over indulge in fan service. Aragorn eating Eowyn's stew is pointless. So is Merry and Pippin drinking Ent Water. Or an Orc complaining to Saruman about lack of logistics. While these scenes are fun, they are also corny and not needed. And there's too many of them. Too many for my comfort that ruins the feel of an epic trilogy. It indulges in triviality.
The extended editions are beloved because they're fun. But Lord of the Rings is not meant to be fun. It's a journey of darkness and treachery. Its not meant to be Disney Land. Which is what I think the fans don't get. They're meant to be ominous and foreboding, which the theatricals do an excellent job of preserving.
@@DestinyAwaits19 For me, exactly these little „pointless“ details make the difference to really „feel“ for the characters. If I‘d watch a random action movie, I want it to quickly come to some cool action scenes without too much interruptions, but for Lord of the Rings, its totally different. I want to experience the whole journey, not just the highlights - and even scenes like the „soup for Aragorn“ might look just as funny additions at first sight, but so much more flesh out the characters and their relaition towards each other.
And my goal when watching lord of the right is not to get “the most efficient way to see the point of the story“, its to experience middle earth, to feel like being a part of it. And especially the contrast between LoR and the hobbit extended points out what I mean. The LotR extended seems to pay more respect to Tolkins work, while the Hobbit does exactly what you said about LotREx.
@@arneczool6614 LOTR movies should be an adaptation... not a translation. Jackson's movies are a creation of their own. They're not replica's of Tolkien's work. The movies are based around battles, which Tolkien was against. Further proving as movies they're meant to be ominous and foreboding and tense. I never liked the books. I never liked Tolkien's writing style. He drags on and meanders, and it doesn't suit a 21st Century audience raised on guns and action.
Its the trick of turning any book into a film/TV show. Changes have to be made as they are two different mediums. The key is to know what to change while still keeping faith to what the authors whole point for including it in their book for.
''Books and movies are different mediums; adaptations have to make changes.''
90% of defenses for the Peter Jackson movies. The problem is that those movies have hundreds of unnecessary changes, butcher the characters and are unfaithful to the book.
@@reek4062They were as faithful to the books as a love adaption at the time would permit them to be. It is obvious they made changes solely for the purpose of adaption rather than inserting their own messages into Tolkien's story.
I've seen in the replies to many comments on this video and you don't seem to understand this.
@@ShatteredIce These movies are a love adaptation in the same way rapists love their victims. They made changes because they had no faith or interest in Tolkien's story.
That is bullshit.@@reek4062
That last line, spoken by Tolkien in the old recording, "...they sang as they slew...," never fails to raise a lump in my throat. I remember my very first reading of it in the book, so many years ago. I was thunderstruck! It filled me with a terrible wonder, constricting my throat and moistening my eyes. I was _in_ that battle! I was _on_ the Pelennor! Those warriors, whom I'd been picturing in my mind's eye as vikings on horseback, singing in deep-throated notes, in time with their spears and swords, as they slashed and hewed the evil orc flesh! The entire dusty, sweaty, bloody, noisy, maelstrom of battle swept around me! And they were _singing_ about it!
I really wished we could have seen that captured on screen! But, it was a few years out from Braveheart, when such movies' depictions of old-time edged-weapon battles was all sound and fury and near-subliminal speed and flashes of action, so that was the vision audiences and directors were used to.
Still, would have been nice to have heard that singing....
Rohan on Pelennor was written wonderfully, it just needed to be copied to the screen, but Jackson dropped the ball.
@@josiprakonca2185Jackson did perfectly. Stop detracting.
Whoa, a So Uncivilized video?
A surprise to be sure. But a welcome one!
Spot on observation about Dune, arguably its biggest weakness is the lack of original dialogue in place of flat and uninspiring alternatives which is a shame because the visuals are so striking. Whereas Jackson managed to compliment visuals with dialogue, which is why it feels so authentic.
I keep falling asleep during those films..There is no story, just grand visuals and unsympathetic characters. I find myself rooting for the villains ..👺👺
The reason Tolkien's words are so much more effective than Herbert's is that Tolkien was a better writer. High fantasy is a garden of delight for an old school, poetic wordsmith. Herbert created an extraordinarily rich and detailed world, but he lacked the poetic sensibilities to populate the books he wrote about it with gorgeous prose. In Herbert's defense, the writing style in speculative fiction had moved on. The ideas had become richer, but the prose poorer.
Claiming Dune is not authentic is crazyyyy. The lack of dialogue was an excellent creative choice.
I fear we’ll never see the care and dedication that went into this series again. I always remember a section from the extended cut special features where someone said (may have been Jackson himself) that they approached the films more like a documentary, which gave rise to the sheer detail throughout. And Bernard Hill (RIP) mentioned how his royal robes had little horses embroidered on the inside linings as an example. Something the audience would never notice but done anyway because the movies were such a labor of love.
Here was a trilogy, when comes such another?
Never. I truly believe that. I followed the making of the films back in the day on TORN and other sources and to us it was evident with which LOVE everyhone involved made this LOTR film. Script, cast, crew, everyone. That dedication I think you will NEVER find again on this earth.
As someone who grew up on Tolkien, and who chaffed at some of the changes Jackson and company made (Theoden and Gandalf's positions on using Helm's Deep, the changes to Faramir and Denethor, and Sauron as a giant eye, being foremost), I've always thought they did about as good a job as could be done. No, it's not perfect, but I strongly doubt we'll see anything any better in our lifetimes. It's not perfect, but it's very good.
Made me think... one one hand it's not perfect, but it's as good as it can be... on the other hand isn't as good as can be the definition of perfect.
For me the biggest vandalism are the changes to Frodo to make him less capable, more of a passenger. Not fighting to the last against the Witch King, not being the one to face them at the ford, staggering around like he is mind controlled in Osgiliath and offering the ring to a Nazgul (!) and sending Sam away on the stairs, all terrible changes imo that make Frodo not the same character he was in the books. And given Frodo is the main character of the story, getting him right is really important.
But I agree, Denethor and Faramir get done dirty as well. But really few characters escape the adaptation without being lessened and coarsened.
@@johnnybigbones4955 I totally agree that the film misses something important by letting Frodo be so seemingly weak. His understanding of what was at stake and his complete trust in Gandalf made him strong against the power of the Ring to corrupt. Those moments you mention were wasted opportunities to give him the stature he deserves. Sam is often looked at as the real hero, but Sam understood he was above all the protector and enabler of the one who carried the Burden, a task he was not cut out to do.
Definitely dropped the ball on Frodo, he's pretty much unrecognizable. Not sure why they made him so incompetent. And I don't get the choice to send Sam away in the middle of ROTK, just drama I guess? As if there isn't enough? I didn't mind the changes to Faramir, but Denethor was way too cartoonishly dickish.
@@freebandz4332 as i understood from dvd about rotk, they needed frodo to be 1 on 1 with shelob.
Oh my God he found his Password again! Welcome back!
the biggest things that were lost to me personally was Theoden (reduced to rambling rotten oldman, instead of an annoyed and depressed one, Denethor - reduced to a blabbering suicidal fool on fire, instead of a powerful and tragic figure.. and the whole of the Pellenor battle, where the 'dead' cheat-killed everyone reducing the heroism of all other parties that overcame overwhelming odds by themselves.. to senseless nothing winning only due to instakill plotarmor.)
All of that was lost in the movies.
Still, they are a masterpiece. (Especially the first move, directors cut)
I still remember reading Tolkien’s books, and I still remember watching Jackson’s movies. I had forgotten Rings of Power existed until you reminded me of it. That’s the sign of a story that lasts. I bet in 100 years, Jackson’s films will still be as fondly remembered as the books are now.
One hopes.
I hope not.
@@reek4062 I hope so, detractor.
@@reek4062im with you. If the books were lost to history, i would hate the movies to be how Tolkiens writing is remembered.
It's bonkers how I actually tear up when hearing snippets of monologue from these books/movies, even in a documentary form. "Then I shall die as one of them" "Ride now, ride now, ride now"
And great video, btw. I very much like the comparisons.
So glad I'm not the only one! However people may feel about the movie adaptations, the fact that they can have such an impact on us from just a clip... surely says enough.
When you have beautiful writing paired with expert actors, the setting doesn't matter as much haha. I got tears a few times watching this from how poignant the delivery of certain lines was. Sam speaking of Faramir's character hit me especially hard.
Firstly, congratulations on an interesting, insightful and well made, comparative analysis of films with the books!
You opted to follow the 15-20mins standard TH-cam video length, but I would've appreciated a longer version.
Regarding Aragorn in the films, I don't think he despised his inheritance at all (6:55).
Instead, he was reluctant to rule because he lacked faith in himself, being haunted by Isildur's failure. This gave him a character arc which added depth to his character by making his motivations more believable. It makes sense that a descendant of "Rangers from the North", who was raised at Rivendell (amongst elves) would be reluctant to travel South to Gondor to reclaim the throne of a kingdom he has no personal connection with. Indeed, the first film contrasts Aragorn's relative disinterest in Gondor with Boromir's unabashed love for his country, (despite the continued stress caused by conflict with Mordor) which makes his desperate attempt to take The One Ring from Frodo more believable. Over the course of Jackson's films, Aragorn gradually realizes that he must become King, not because he wants to, but because Gondor (and their allies in Middle-Earth) badly need a leader to inspire them in their darkest hour.
Indeed, in the books Aragorn isn't even heir to Gondor, as Isildur ruled over Arnor, while his younger brother Anarion, ruled over Gondor. This is why the stewards argue that he has no claim to the throne and Denethor refuses to acknowledge him as King. Such details were omitted from the films to simplify the story for audiences, but as you say repeatedly in the video, when adapting a book means changing things...
So telling how they did the opposite for The Hobbit trilogy, and how much the films suffered for the alterations. We don't need an elf/dwarf love triangle, we don't need a cross dressing side character, we don't need a giant CGI setpiece battle every 20 minutes.
Check out fan cuts. They tend to remove Legolas, Tauriel, Alfred and sometimes even Azog for the most part. And also reduce the battle of the five armies to a reasonable amount
@@racernatorde5318 I'll definitely check it out. There are some great moments in The Hobbit, but the best bits are Riddles in the Dark, or the confrontation with Smaug, and the low points are the pointless action or manufactured drama for screentime.
The problem was the opposite of LotR--Jackson sought to make LotR, and had to convince a studio to let him. For the Hobbit, the studio cajoled Jackson into being the producer, and when he had to take over for Del Toro, they were already far into production and he had to cut corners to meet the deadline the studio gave.
Instead of trying to make Tolkien’s film they made their own.
@@racernatorde5318 The fan cut is the only version I remember now. I only wish there be something done with how Bilbo decided to go on an adventure. Not by contract, but because of his deeply rooted ancestry being invoked upon.
My favorite quote about adapting books into movies or tv shows is from Ty Franck who said that "always think of an adaption as a retelling of a story by a different narrator" and I think Peter Jackson and his team have outdone themselves with the "narration" on these movies.
In this case a very poor retelling
@@reek4062rings of power has a different director
I do appreciate you taking the time to source the original quotes from the book - it makes this video more than just an intercut of existing DVD extra material, which it seems 99% of LotR film related content these days are
The ‘old man Willow’ scene isn’t completely frivolous in the Two Towers as it helps to seed the idea of the danger of the Huorns and gives us a clearer idea of what’s happening to the fleeing Uruks at the end of the extended edition.
Really fascinating essay, I actually hadn't realized how jumbled the dialogue and writing was. Also, 14:15 This was actually really scintillating! It makes me want to see an edit of the LOTR films with the footage/scenes from the movies cut over readings by Tolkein himself like this.
I liked the Faramir change, because it explained the relationship between him and his father.
Faramir was noble, but this moment of weakness transported so much backstory.
The main reason I think that they deviated from a more literal translation is that what works for a book does not necessarily work well for a film, something Tolkien would not have factored in when creating the books.
What made the films ultimately work was that they still FELT right because of the deep respect for the original books, even if details differed here and there.
Tolkein himself approved of adaptation as a concept after all - he'd even advocated for cutting Helm's Deep out entirely if it better fit a movie so as to not clash with the Battle of the Pellenor Fields.
The films show no respect to the book.
@@reek4062 You literally just saw a video essay about the *intense* respect for the book the Jackson movies show.
@@reek4062you mean the series
@@ariandynas A video essay whose main thesis is "Jackson showed 'respect' for the books by taking words Tolkien wrote for specific characters, divorcing them from those characters, and giving them to others." Ah yes, that's so respectful of Tolkien. A scrapbook of dialogue put into the mouths of whatever character Jackson felt like that day. That certainly has no adverse effects on characterization.
This guy's writing and editing deserves a video essay itself, bravo sir.
More people need to watch this video. I LOVE the movies, I love the books. I love the 'changes' Peter Jackson and others made in the LoTR movies because they kept the heart, spirit and intention of Tolkien's work paramount. They wanted Tolkien to be proud of them and make the movies FOR him. THAT is how you adapt things across mediums.
ironically enough, So Uncivilised might actually be the most "civilised" channel in the entirety of TH-cam. always a pleasure to watch these videos❤
It's the Return of the King of TH-cam movie analysis!
I've never read Lord of the Rings but somehow read the much more difficult Silmarillion (planning to read Beren and Lothien and Fall of Gondolin next after finishing Dune), but I was always interested in the conflict on Jackson's LOTR series not being adapted precisely to the book.
Since a lot of adaptations as you said are more of the "this is mine" meme and change a lot of the intentions of the novel, I'm much more jaded in a way where I think movie adaptations/remakes should be not only 90% accurate to the source material, but also to respect the intentions of the author/director (hopefully Eggers achieves this in his remake of Nosferatu).
I always felt that Jackson could have done more to make the movie accurate to the books, and that switch Aragorn to know that he'll be King of Gondor one day, but his route is still full of temptation. Tolkien written Aragorn to be the kingship aspect of Jesus, so I was wondering Jackson, who is irreligious, still could have adapted Aragorn's arc to be similar to Jesus's walk in the desert where Satan keeps tempting him.
However, I do see the struggle in creating an arc for Aragorn from this moment, so alas, as you said, due to the current times of where it is compelling to see a character arise from his flaws and people loving action scenes, it was much more practical for Jackson to drop this element in the first movie but then bring him back in wanting to become King in the RotK. It's tragic though because I think Christopher who loved the language of his father in the books would never be able to be comprehended by the masses. Hence why I should attempt to read the LotR someday.
I'm just surprised that your video addressed these concerns where I thought this analysis was going to compare the writers of Rings of Power of how they tried to make LotR theirs while Jackson did his best to preserve Tolkien's legacy. But it probably won't be a fun video to write since TH-cam is bloated with RoP getting (righteously) trashed on videos. It feels that you are my conscious ngl.
I should have known though that you'll always surprise people with new things as seen by the Anti-Trilogy videos and the Lucas saga videos, so this was very eye-opening.
See you next year!
Read Unfinished Tales.
As I'm reading Lord of the Rings, I always get a little caught off-guard when I come across a line in the book that sounds in my head like the actor from the movies is saying it.
It's also interesting just how much more conflict the movies have compared to the books. Faramir's choice was mentioned in the video, but also Théoden's loss of hope and pretty much every conversation between Smeagol and Gollum leading to Sam being dismissed. I totally understand that character arcs need to either start at or reach a low point in order for there to be a compelling upliftment and culmination, it's just a little jarring when you're experiencing both back-to-back.
Beren and Luthien and Fall of Gondolin are a little difficult because they aren't finished narratives. They are a compilation of various versions in different states of completion. Still worth reading but its important to know what your getting into. You should also check out Children of Hurin, it is complete and is also one of the great tales of the first age. The conversation between Hurin and Morgoth is one of my favorite scenes in all of Tolkien.
Aragorn was not a protagonist in the book, but a supporting character. Jackson turned him into a protagonist in the film, so he needed a full character arc, meaning he had to show significant growth, like all protagonists must. The problem was that book Aragorn was already a fully matured character that needed little to no development--he was already responsible, desired to claim the throne, was secure in his love and desire to marry Arwen, etc. Great for a supporting character in the book...but he needed to show development as a protagonist in the film.
@@rikk319 basically he went through movie Aragorn's character arc already, while in the movies he just setting foot on this path of becoming better and more worthy as the King
Great video. One of the things I appreciate the most about the LotR adaption is that, while there were some significant changes, they not only made sure to pull different character lines from the books, but also made sure to stick to the general themes of the books: Faramir's change, while drastically altering him as a character, still supports the theme surrounding the corrupting power of the ring; Aragorn's character change still holds the idea of a good king at its center, warrior vs healer in the books, and power-hungry/prideful vs humble in the movies. That is what makes it one of the best book-to-movie adaptions of all time: respect for the source material.
Holy *CRAP*!! Welcome back!!
Jackson gets most of the credit, but Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh are arguably the most important players in this adaptation.
Walsh and Boyens made a mockery out of the book.
@@reek4062And your attempts to cut down their efforts makes a mockery out of yourself.
@@ShatteredIce Unlike them, I didn't molest Tolkien's characters.
Who are they?
@@joshuagregoire9504 Two of the co-writers of the trilogy alongside Peter Jackson himself. There’s clips of them in this video.
This video has ones of the most nuanced, articulated and well thought out words about PJ's trilogy I've ever heard ! Great, great work !
People often follow radical paths when it comes to talk about iconic IPs like LOTR, in good or bad. So listening to deep and well thought out remarks about the films and the books was very refreshing and captivating.
I like to compare it the first HP movie which came out at the same time. It was flat. Almost a word-for-word adaptation. It’s a great story, but a meh movie.
PJ created a perfect adaptation of “Fellowship” by moving into a visual medium what were spoken and vice versa. The later movies were not AS good, but still acceptable adaptations.
@@ktrimbach5771 I think they pretty much nailed it with Fellowship, you can't adapt a work that massive better than that. Most changes make sense, while the other two have both baffling changes and additions. King is almost certainly the worst adaptation-wise.
I just let out a scream of joy, glad to see you make another video
'The scouring of the shire' is NOT (amongst other things) about Frodo suffering from PTSD. He was forever affected by the knife wound given to him on Weathertop by the Ringwraith. The damage had been done even though Elrond managed to remove all the broken fragments later, Frodo had by that time almost succumbed and became a Ringwraith . He was physically affected NOT mentally, and suffered bouts of great physical pain even once back in the shire. His body was still trying to transform into a Wraith, this would never go away but instead increase with time. Gandalf and Elrond discuss this amongst themselves whilst waiting for Frodo to recover and wake up after the 'Flight to the ford'. Even Sam sees this happening to Frodo later on in the Two Towers and wonders what will become of him in the future if they survive and accomplish their task.
Seeing the charge of the Rohirrim on the Pelennor Fields while listening to Tolkein read one of my favorite excerpts from the book brought tears to my eyes.
I really like how this video emphasizes that the product achieved is downstream from the intentions. I argued a long time ago, using Aragorn and Faramir as key examples, that the main difference in the book characters vs the movie characters was the concept of a character vs a paragon. A paragon is someone who arrives in the story, fully formed, representing the best of who they are. They are an example to aspire to. And this is the common form of older stories. Contrast that with characters. Characters are members of the story who are not perfect, and who struggle. They have some kind of flaw, or general shortcoming, and over the course of the story they grow and confront those flaws and become better. Arguable Hero's Journey stories are basically the process by which a character becomes a paragon.
So under this lens, Aragorn being a reluctant king, because he sees his ancestry as a curse and a failing rather than a mandate, makes him more of a character. Book Aragorn and Movie Aragorn end up as basically the same person by the end of their respective mediums, but we watch the process happen in the movies.
And that's partly why I do have to sigh and shake my head at Christopher Tolkien's complaints that are echo'd by many others, about LotR just being 'action movies'. The Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli+WW part of the Two Towers is basically stand-alone in the books, and it's nothing but an action-adventure romp of four paragons. Aragorn goes around calling himself king, with his great sword, and anyone who doesn't immediately love and defer to him must just not have heard the good news yet. It's good, and it's fun, but its more of an action movie than any part of the LotR movies because there's basically no struggle and no introspection or growth. Just a bunch of awesome dudes going around being awesome, accomplishing a goal.
No idea if people want to read a massive wall of text, but since it was well-recieved in the conversation, I did express some thoughts on the Faramir adaptation. I think there was more done with his character than is often claimed by the critics, how they just 'ruined' him. I think they did something more with him:
I think the other character that got changed the most was Faramir. And a lot of people didn't like that because Faramir in the books was awesome, and they didn't like him being changed into a completely different person. /briareus08 expressed such a feeling. And I get that. I love Faramir in the books too. But there is something to be said for his changes in the movie. He perhaps provides an even greater distinction than Aragorn between a Paragon who does and a Character who struggles. And I think it makes him more interesting in the movie than the book.
Speaking in broad generalities here, In the books Faramir is the mirror image of Boromir. Boromir was a great leader and warrior, while Faramir was a great leader and scholar. They were two sides of the same coin. To illustrate this, when Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he instantly realizes that he ought to help them, and that they're on an important mission. When mention of the ring is vaguely brought up, he basically dismisses it out of hand. "I wouldn't pick it up if it were laying on the side of the road." or something like that.
This demonstrates that he's wise, and studied, and knows not to go after the ring. But on the other hand... to me this really diminishes the weight of the Ring itself. If, randomly, some people can just ignore it, that really undercuts the idea of this being an all-corrupting evil.
Which kind of makes Boromir look really weak in comparison to his brother. He was driven mad by the ring while Faramir just says: "Nah, no thanks." and leaves it at that.
Now, one could argue that if Faramir had seen or gotten into contact with the ring, he might have been corrupted just as easily as Boromir, and Faramir knew that which is why he would intentionally never touch it. But denying oneself temptation isn't exactly the same thing as resisting it. It's the difference between an alcoholic turning down a drink at a bar, or staying home. One relies on your force of will, while the other relies on smart forward-thinking so that your will is never tested. It'd certainly be the [Book]-Faramir thing to do, but all the same, it's a little less interesting. It's the same sort of question as: "Can you really be courageous if you're never afraid?"
In the movie, Fairmir is changed from being his brother's mirror image to being his opposite or his understudy. A lesser leader and a lesser warrior. And this sets up a great dynamic between Faramir and his family. Despite always being in his brother's shadow, Faramir is never resentful or jealous of his brother - he loves Boromir outright, and Boromir him in turn. What he craves is the approval of his father. Denathor arguably takes the biggest hit in losing complexity and nuance from book to movie, but his more simplistic characterization serves to better drive the Faramir/Denathor dynamic, which I think was a worthwhile tradeoff.
So when movie Faramir meets Frodo and Sam, he waylays them, and plans to send them with the ring to his father to finally gain Denathor's approval. Faramirs more normal susceptibility to the draw of the ring helps drive the parallels between him and Boromir, and doesn't make Boromir look abnormally corruptible. More importantly, Faramir eventually relents and sends the Hobbits on their way. This act is significant because it shows three huge things all at once.
First, Faramir succeeds where his brother failed. He finally rose above and out of his brother's shadow. And he doesn't do this easily, but is really rather on the edge, and struggles with it.
Secondly, this choice of doing the right thing and rising above his brother is a choice in his own mind, by his own standard, rather than his father's. It's in direct defiance of what his father would want of him - the father whose approval he desperately craved. And it's not so simplistic as him renouncing his father and deciding not to care about what Denathor thinks. We see in the third film that he's still willing to literally throw his life away just to try and gain his father's approval. It's easy to make a choice when you stop caring about one of the options. It's far more interesting, dramatic, and demonstrative of an underlying strength of character to desperately want both things and still choose the right thing.
In the end, the example of Boromir's death was stronger than Faramirs desperation for Denathor's approval. It pushed him over the edge, which means Faramir likely only succeeded where Boromir failed because of Boromir's example. And so (thirdly) through Fairamir, by being a loving brother, Boromir also gains redemption.
Faramir is an utterly different person in the books and the movies. And it's perfectly fair to argue that the cost of losing book-Faramir was't worth it. But it's undeniable that the Faramir we got in the movies perfectly fits into the themes of the story, and provides for great dynamic between him and his family which ties together and strengthens the characterization of both him and Boromir. I think he's probably one of the strongest and best-written characters in the movies because of that. Which is a funny contrast because Sam remains my favorite character, and he's perfect precisely because he's totally faithful to his book counterpart. I see no distinction between the two - Movie Sam just gets an awesome soundtrack to accompany him.
Which goes to show that Tolkien was perfectly capable of writing great, characters. The choice to have most of the fellowship already be paragons - Heros past their own Heroic journey, fully realized and just doing heroic things - was an active choice to make the books more focused on the world and the adventure. He wasn't lacking, he just had a different focus than what the movies did, and it makes it all the richer that we get both experiences.
15:29 - I liked and I’m already subscribed, guess I need to read the books now.
And that is a great video. Seriously, it's far better than all the "Rings of Power is trash" videos that are around these days, your work on actual quotes and a simple yet meaningful subject is great and too rare.
But rings of power is trash.
@@ankymrn It is, doesn't mean that you can't have an insightful look into its problems though.
This was a very interesting video. As someone who read the books after watching the films, I was intrigued and somewhat conflicted by how much things were shifted around narratively speaking.
But, as you've pointed out, it was effectively all part of the adaptive process. Something like the Scouring of the Shire technically still appeared, but was changed so that it would better fit the narrative structure of the film.
Adapting a smaller, less complex and detail packed book like Harry Potter was always going to be easier than the epic behemoth of Tolkiens trilogy. But Jackson did a pretty good job - as you've pointed it out- of capturing the enchanting feel of the books through his restructuring of moments and dialogue.
I really appreciate your respect for both the books and the massive undertaking of turning it into a movie.
Thanks for a great video. A few thoughts about Aragorn, who in movie and book form is probably my favorite fictional character of all time:
You're right that the PJ movies played up the "reluctant hero" who had to be convinced to pursue the throne. However, I think this video's characterization is oversimplified. Looking deeper at Aragorn's life story (esp. from the LOTR appendices), if being king were his main desire, he might have, at a much earlier stage of his life, with the aid of the Dunedain and the Elves, attempted to re-form the Northern Kingdom (Arnor) and claim that kingship, since that region was basically a complete power vacuum.
Instead, he traveled under a false name to Rohan, to ride with the Rohirrim, then to Gondor also under an assumed name, to fight the forces of Sauron, making no attempt whatsoever to establish his rightful claim. There's even an enigmatic sentence about how, in his moment of highest triumph as a captain of Gondor, he simply walked away, traveling into the East alone to uncover and disrupt the plots of the Enemy wherever he could find them, which I interpret as an almost 007-like solo mission--but self-appointed, with no M to dictate the mission.
When he returned to the North, he and his Rangers worked as a covert army protecting the Shire and Bree-land from evil creatures, but rather than take any credit to establish a reputation and take up a crown, he instead kept this entire guardianship a strictly guarded secret--Bree-landers had no idea what the Rangers were doing, and the Shire-folk never even knew they existed. None of this makes any sense if claiming the throne was his main goal.
My take is this: Tolkien framed Aragorn as being worthy of being king less because he was the rightful heir, and much more because he spent his entire life, 80+ years, risking unimaginable hardship in order to fight Sauron, the great enemy of the free peoples of Middle Earth. The only reason Aragorn really *wanted* to be king, as I read it, is because Arwen was his one true love, and Elrond insisted Arwen would marry no lesser mortal Man than the king of both Gondor and Arnor.
But even with this in mind, Aragorn put no real effort into becoming king; rather, he understood (thanks mainly to Gandalf) that the only way humans and elves alike had a future was if Sauron could somehow be defeated--which seemed utterly impossible. He saw the role of king as above all that of a protector, and showed he would rather die trying to do that than take up the title of king in any self-serving, hollow way.
So yes, PJ's "reluctant" Aragorn was different, but I think the core of the character--who's willing to risk his life again and again to protect his companions or the innocent, and above all to confront Sauron's evil--remains unchanged. At risk of speaking heresy, I actually think in a couple of ways--the scene where Aragorn resists the Ring's temptation at the end of Fellowship, the Extended Edition scene where Aragorn is singing the Lay of Luthien alone at night--PJ gives us a fuller and more emotionally stirring Aragorn even than the books do.
TL;DR - PJ's/Viggo's Aragorn is a great one, equal to Tolkien's, who may rest in the mighty company of his ancestors without feeling ashamed.
It's the music and sounds.
The visuals are easy, since it's based on medieval Europe and the descriptions are pretty clear, and we know what Tokien based it all on.
But the music and sounds that were created for the films are absolutely tremendous. You cannot ever credit Howard Shore enough for what he created.
Howard Shore ascended here, maybe the best single element of the whole project
Now I'm hearing the Uruk Hai theme in my head!
@@Polyphemus47 Duuun, dun dun!!!!
But you can't write good music if you're rushed or the script/the scene isn't inspiring. Which is what happens to John Williams in new Star Wars, the score can't save a bad script.
to be fair, no, visuals arent easy ;) for one the movies are based on late medieval, the books more on early to high medieval. plus it just looks right, because they listened to the right person to make (MASSIV) changes to costumes. we only got those very good costumes because they had an reenactor as an advisor (and listened to him), otherwise we would have gotten the typical fantasy armor/costume designs. especially with armor it helps if you ask someone who knows how that stuff works
(even if there could be improvements still)
9:57
I'm so glad you pointed this out, especially with that wording: "uncomfortable" with the titanic virtue of LotR's heroes. I first encountered this observation through Master Samwise's video on Theoden, how the filmmakers cut him down to build him back up and give him a better arc for film. It makes you shiver when you experience the full weight of Tolkien's original characters, and it really makes you value what a paragon of virtue can do for a story in a different, and no less valid, way than a redeemed hero.
Terrific essay 👏
The public can't handle infallible heroes in their Hollywood blockbusters.
One of my favorite quotes in the trilogy by far is Sams message to Frodo in 2 Towers, "That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.", I adapted the quote to read, "Theres a lot of good left in the world, and its worth fighting for", and made 2 shirts with the quote on them, gave the spare to my Step father who introduced me to the films as a kid.
To me, the LotR books is a true story driven masterpiece. It shows pretty "finished" characters reacting to (or facilitating) the happenings around them, their triumphs and failures, their flaws and virtues, their joy and sorrow without changing much throughout.
On the other hand, the movies are a lot more character driven. We as the audience connect with the characters as we watch them grow and become the best (or worst) version of themselves as their experiences reshape them.
While the book has mostly "static" great character archetypes, the movies made it a point to give even the supporting characters their own little arcs (like Gríma, Théoden, Faramir, Arwen, or even Denethor and Treebeard). They are different, but they are both great.
A well-done presentation that does not awkwardly avoid the topic of what faults lie in the Jackson films or how some criticisms leveled at RoP might also be sent towards the PJ films. In the end I heartily agree with your sense of what made the PJ films a success - that though they made changes they always came back to making the films with Tolkien's vision and no one else's. I only wish that TPTB at Amazon had the strength and integrity to follow along that same path.
Every time I learn something new about these films and how they were made I get a little emotional. This is what happens when your work is truly, deeply loved.
So, the long and short of it; it is beloved not because they simply stuck to the original script, but because they put a lot of thought, effort, and skill into making _good movies._ They _adapted_ the story, but changes were always _with a purpose_ - not just change for change's sake.
Exactly. And you can tell how much Peter, Fran, and Philippa loved and respected the source material. Even when they did make substantial changes. (Less so in The Hobbit movies, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.) You just don’t feel that level of diligence from the Amazon series.
They are good movies, but they are not Tolkien anymore than the RoP. They just dont feel like Tolkien.
I think the main problem with... media just being generally bad right now is too many layers of management stirring the broth with their smelly unwashed rods. Everything comes out as a weird homogenized mess like an AI prompt because it's filtered through too many people, most of whom don't know or care about the film beyond how it makes numbers move around
@@barneyboy2008lol
@@SafetyKitten the mostly slow pacing of the books is completely lost in the movies. The sense of time and distance is so important in Tolkien's books.
0:53 I mean, Legolas is relaying the words of the other elf in the book, so in that sense it is more of a translation/cutting out the middle man than wholly giving the line to another character.
Yes, good point.
As a fanatical Tolkienist, I have to confess that I had doubts about the feasibility of creating the movies. I was pleasantly surprised. Very entertaining and surprisingly close ( st least in spirit) to the books.
The biggest thing they did right was casting Viggo as Aragorn
Yep
And Bean as Sir-Dies-Alot
The entire cast was perfect for their roles. Tolkien would have wanted Lee portraying Gandalf, but as we have all seen, Lee was the ideal actor for Saruman and Mckellen the one for Gandalf.
@@wulfheort8021 Yes. Mckellen's Gandalf is much kinder than what I think tolkien would've envisioned and Lee would have performed.
I litteraly cannot think of anyone else that could have played Aragorn better than Viggo.... well apart from maybe arguably THE greatest actor og all time Danie Day Lewis but besides him NO ONE ELSE!
@johnrockyryan No, Viggo and no one else. Lewis is the best actor in YOUR opinion. He is not the best of all time.
FINALLY!!! The return of the king! You and the movie!
Clicked on this not recognizing the channel and expecting an uninteresting video echoing points I had heard already. Now in hindsight I shouldn't have been surprised to find another really insightful well edited video. Cheers to you!
Always something fresh and insightful with this channel
man the biggest casualty of changing Aragorn into a reluctant heir is the character assassination of Isildur. i get that it isn't Isildur's story, but he was literally one of the greatest and most noble Men to ever live. he wasn't weak, he took the ring as weregild for his fallen father and brother. homeboy was literally on the way to Rivendell to give the ring to the elves with the assumption that they would attempt to destroy it.
Interesting, though I'm not sure I understand. If he was going to let the elves destroy it, why take it in the first place?
@@MamuTVies To keep it safe as it was indestructible. He never went inside Mount Doom in the book and he didn't know how to destroy it.
@@Twiska Ahh I see. Thanks a bunch! I should really give the books another shot.
I would say another consequence is making Arwen's sacrifice a bit confusing and vague as a means to motivate Aragorn.
@@MamuTVies Andy Serkis reads them on Audible. Very, very good!!
As much as I love the books, Tolkien was a very religious person and defender of the monarchy, who also read a lot of old tales and myths his whole life. As such there is a lot of black and white thinking in these movies. I think having both Aragorn and Faramir have real character arcs of struggle and growth to get them were they need to be is such an improvement to the characters. Especially since the biggest lessons and emotional impacts never get lost in adaptation.
Great take, only one thing to add: Aragorn’s reluctance to take the throne, although not directly taken from the books, was directly taken from his worldview, which makes the movies even better for me.
“The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity […] The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.” - J. R. R. Tolkien
These are very specific examples, but the key for me is what this stems from.... Petter Jackson UNDERSTANDS Tolkien. He read it. He loved it. He got it. He was a genuine fan and at the helm of the adaptation. Using Tolkien's words whenever possible did capture that feel, but it could only be done by writers and director genuinely steeped in the books.
It took love and understanding of Lord of the Rings to pull off what they did.
Love was the magic ingredient
YES!
I think he did love the books, but I'm not sure he understood Tolkien. I think Tolkien probably would have disliked the movies, he was quite curmudgeonly and he had thought a LOT about everything in his books, so changing stuff very likely would have bothered him a lot, especially moving dialogue around between characters.
For me that love shone from everyone in cast,crew and all involved too ...
I re-read it (for the 15th time) a few months ago, and watched the movies right after. While the differences were more obvious, I still marveled at Jackson's work, because I was equally awestruck by both. I felt the spirit of Middle-Earth and the grandeur of the characters were in Jackson's vision (which ROP really did not achieve).
I'm glad that this channel is revived! You always have something new to say.
The core of the criticism that RoP receives is not that it changed what Tolkien wrote, but that both it and the writers behind it are disrespectful. Disrespectful to the master, his work, and the fans of it.
So much from books changed. Yet its gorgeous. They knew what to change and how
I love your videos so much. Your wording is just so eloquently beautiful yet straight to the point. You repeat your points towards the end as if to emphasize the main thesis statement of your analysis. Would love more tolkien videos!! Keep it up!!!
4:05 there is no debate. They are.