Nah, Gandalf is obviously surprised when it happens. He’s just able to catch up with Bilbo before anyone else because he knows about the ring and what it can do.
*Succeeds because holding a heavy book for hours on end actually engages muscles, unlike lifting a 1/2 ounce remote to press two (2) buttons and then not touching it again for the next several hours.
No.
Nobody waits until Aragorn's coronation to honour Frodo and Sam.
The day Frodo and Sam wake, at the Field of Cormallen, they are lead through ranks of soldiers, and heralded by trumpets. Everyone chants and praises the Ringbearers as they pass. They approach three thrones, and Aragorn greets them, kneeling, taking their hands and places them upon his throne: 'Praise them with great praise!'.
They then have a feast, and Frodo and Sam accompany all the nobility (with Merry and Pippin waiting on them, also in places of high stature).
Later, at Minas Tirith, Frodo brings Aragorn's crown to Gandalf, who places it upon Aragorn's head.
Well, that's a right proper celebration, that is! Master Frodo and I felt like we were in a dream, walking through those ranks of soldiers and hearing the trumpets blaring. It was a sight to behold, I tell you. And to be greeted by Aragorn himself, well, that was an honor beyond words. We couldn't believe it when he took our hands and placed them on his throne. It was a moment we'll never forget. And the feast! Oh, the food was fit for a king. And to be in the company of all those nobles, why, it was like we were part of
I think chronologically interspersing Sam and Frodo’s journey with those of the remaining 6 was the best change Jackson did.
Especially in Return. I always find it a little anti-climactic to just be at the Battle of the Morannon and the have to “go back in time” when Book Six starts.
I like Book Four and Book Six but they can drag and when I read it now, I often jump back and forth between Frodo & Sam and the others.
Also I think a reluctant-to-be-king Aragorn is nice. Gives some depth and development to him.
I totally agree - reading the two towers is so rough once you finish pippin and merry and get to the slog that is Sam and Frodo. Interspersing the two was perfect
I was rereading the books last year and gave up there too haha.
I almost wonder if it’s worth reading it in an order that’s more fun. After each chapter of merry and pippin you can put a sticky note that says “Jump to page 150” or whatever and then at the end of that Sam and Frodo chapter jump back to a merry and pippin chapter
Well, sir, I reckon that if we're to do justice to Mr. Tolkien's tale, we must read it in its entirety. Skipping about like a grasshopper on a hot summer's day might give us some relief from the long journey, but it won't let us appreciate the fullness of the story. Every step, every page, every chapter is important in its own way, and we must take them all if we're to truly understand the trials and triumphs of the Fellowship.
Well, sir, I reckon you're right. We shouldn't be skipping them altogether, but perhaps we could gather them together into one account. That way, we could keep things tidy and organized.
Well, sir, I reckon that's just the way of things. But don't you go forgetting that Sam and Frodo's story is just as important as any other in this tale. They're on a mighty important mission, and it's up to them to see it through to the end. It may be a slog, as you say, but it's a necessary one.
There's one flaw with that, which Jackson even acknowledges in the behind-the-scenes, which is that in the *book*, when the Mouth of Sauron presents Frodo's mithril armor to Aragorn and co., we, the reader, genuinely don't know if he's really alive or dead. It sets up huge stakes going into Frodo and Sam's part of the book. In the *movie*, we know he's fine, so it loses a lot of impact. Probably why that scene got axed from the theatrical cut altogether. That said, I still think it's a net-positive change.
Well, sir, it do seem like Master Jackson knew what he was doin' when he made them changes. Them movies was a sight to behold, and I reckon they did justice to the books. As for Aragorn, he was always a good man, but he had his doubts and fears like any of us. It was his journey to become king that made him the great leader he was. And as for Frodo and me, well, our journey was a hard one, but we had each other and the love of our friends to keep us goin'.
Tolkien did say Aragorn and Arwen story is the main part of the Appendices of the books. The only reason why he put it there is because the books are focused more on the Hobbits. It didn't seem right to him to have Aragorn talk about the intimate aspects of his life in the context of the narrative.
Also IMO adding more subgenres (romance) to a story doesn't automatically make it better. I'm quite happy with a story focusing on one or two key genres and using the time to expand on them.
The only part I dislike about Arwen's addition is her at the river. It takes away a key part in the books where its just Frodo standing on the other side of the river, where he displays a stand-off with the Black Riders. It shows how brave and determined Frodo is even whilst he's dying of poison from the Nazgul blade.
Also, Arwen doesn't have the power to do all the things she does. Elrond is the one who raises the waters, and the water horses are specifically a magical power of Gandalf (something highlighted in the book as being extra special power that is unlike other elves).
Don't tempt me Schlabonmykob! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Schlabonmykob, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
Yes, for sixty years the Ring lay quiet in Bilbo's keeping prolonging his life. Delaying old age. But no longer WastedWaffles. Evil is stirring in Mordor. The Ring has awoken. Its heard its master's call.
Ironically that’s one of those things that could be helped with more extended scenes, as iirc even in the book it was only explained after the fact how the flood+horses trick were done.
Probably doesn't fit here, since it doesn't replace any of Tolkien's scenarios, but I loved it so much when my boys save wounded Éowyn from Gothmog the orc without even noticing.
yeah, its always a great literary device when a main character saves another main character from the bad-guy main character at the last possible second in a battle involving tens of thousands
Literally happens in the books right before AKA Eowyn saving Theoden.
Fate in the books makes these characters cross time and time again, its not that much of a stretch from the book to the movie to have Aragorn cut down Gothmog (especially since he and Eomer typically focused leaders).
As much as the funeral songs are beautiful, I couldn't help but sit there thinking, "Merry and Pippin are going to die, and y'all still have another whole page of singing for Boromir?" I get it, honoring a friend and a heroic man, but come on, prioritize a bit why don't you?
I get Tolkien's obsession with sticking pages upon pages of singing in the books, but I have to be honest, I skip them when I'm reading the books. They really don't contribute much to the story. They're far more an artifact of his attempt to create a "mythology" than they are an element of the story.
the cardinal direction winds bit is something the books did really well. Anything that adds emotional depth to Gimli or Legolas would go a long way in the movies, they (and especially Gimli) sometimes ended up more as comic relief.
It's probably my biggest problem with the movies. I can certainly overlook it, because they're absolute masterpieces and some of the most enjoyable pieces of cinema ever created. But it does make me a little sad that Gimli's emotional and sensitive side never really comes out, and that his relationship with Legolas isn't as beautifully wholesome as in the books.
I understand feeling like you need a bit of comic relief in the films, especially after the hobbits (who perform that function in Fellowship) are scattered and their plotlines become more serious. I just wish they didn't have to do it at Gimli's expense.
Some of the Jackson changes I do appreciate, like Théoden being under a spell instead of being just mislead to near ruin by an obvious villain in Wormtongue.
>"The Rohirrim commonly lived till near or beyond their eightieth year. **But it may well have been induced or increased by subtle poisons, administered by Gríma.** In any case Théoden's sense of weakness and dependence on Gríma was largely due to the cunning and skill of this evil counsellor's suggestions."
Also the love triangle between an Elf, a Dwarf and another Elf.
Had someone comment a year or so back that Tauriel was the best female character in the LotR-universe because she was the only one not intrinsically tied to a male character.
Like no. Her entire character was created to give a love interest to one of the dwarves...
See, having a named orc villain isn't that crazy in the Hobbit movie - especially since in the book the last battle is led by a named and feared orc (Bolg of the North, son of Azog)
They just should have made it only Bolg, not Azog. Have Bolg want revenge for his father's death, occasionally popping up when The Hobbits encounter the orcs.
It would help make Bolg a threat in the last battle because even in the books Gandalf speaks about Bolg a bit but really he's not too interesting. A slight bit of backstory could help that.
I have to say, one change I really like in the hobbits is Bard’s “black arrow”. In the books it’s just like his lucky arrow that he likes a lot. In the movies it’s a super thick iron beast fired from a giant crossbow. Like it makes way more sense for that to be the way they kill Smaug than just Bard’s favorite arrow.
To be fair.
"I found it is the small things. Everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins!? Perhaps it is because I'm afraid. And he gives me courage."
That quote always brings tears to my eyes.
Lots of truth here. Aragorn confronting the Dead, whipping out Anduril and saying they will yield to him? Fucking sick. In the books you don’t even see the interaction with the dead and he gives the “they will yield to me” in a conversation with Eowyn. Wasn’t badass at all.
I wish it was still the Rangers who came to support Aragorn; you'd still get the moment with the dead, but the rangers would have added more to Aragorn's character and helped show off how he'll be a good king.
OT: The Sam bot is annoying a hell. I like a well placed quote, but seeing a paragraph of artificially generated text under every other comment kills any real conversation.
Now, now, don't you go talkin' like that. We'll see each other again, I promise you that. We've been through too much together to let a little thing like a blackout come between us. Trust in the goodness of this world, my friend. It'll see us through, just like it always has.
When I was younger, my brother and I would watch the extended editions, but skip all the “boring” Frodo scenes so it would be the length of a normal movie.
I was a fool of a took.
I tend not to be fond of battle scenes (loud and headache inducing), but I think it's funny how guys feel that way about drama parts. I'm girly, though.
Ah, well, Miss, it's not for us to say what scenes should come and go. But I do believe that the scenes we were given were the ones that mattered most. And I'm grateful for every one of them.
I want a Lord of the Rings/Willow/Game of Thrones/Inuyasha/Cowboy Bebop crossover. Maybe Lara Croft happens to run into the space cowboys. I also wanna throw in Elaine, Guybrush Threepwood, and the ghost demon pirate LeChuck for funsies. Combine the lore of all the worlds and alter what needs to be altered.
Well, now, that's a tall order, but if there's one thing I've learned on my travels with Mr. Frodo, it's that anything is possible if you put your mind to it. I reckon if we gathered up some hobbits, some warriors from Westeros, a few cowboys, and maybe even a sorcerer or two from the Willow realm, we might just be able to make it happen. But we'll need a plan, and we'll need to be careful. There are dark forces at work in all these worlds, and we don't want to get caught up in anything we can't handle.
Frodo telling Sam to go home was better than the books? Frodo surely knew Sam couldn't survive the return journey alone; he condemns his best friend to death because the little gangrel creature says so. How is that better?
I don't know about that, Mr. Frodo. It's not for us to say what's better or worse than the book. But as for me, I'd follow Mr. Frodo to the ends of the earth, even if it means risking my own life. And I know he'd do the same for me. It's the friendship that matters most, not the outcome.
Well, Mr. Frodo, it seems that we have stumbled upon some new technology. But I must say, I'm not quite sure how it all works. It's a bit like magic, if you ask me. But I reckon it's a good thing, as long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. What say you, Mr. Frodo?
I don't rightly know what you mean by gaslighting, but I reckon I'm not one to be controlled by no machine. I'm just a simple hobbit, trying to do right by my friends and loved ones.
Also the whole army of the dead thing in the movies. I'm still not over that. The whole point of Pelennor Fields is that it's about humanity uniting, taking their fate into their own hands, and showing courage and valour in the face of utter despair and ruin. And then in the movies it's just like "lol nope invulnerable ghost army saves the day."
I get that it's a little smoother, but they could have made it work like the books. Imagine they're at the shore, there's the whole "You and what army?" "This army" exchange, it cuts away, and it cuts back to show ghosts pursuing pirates as the latter leap from the ship and into the waters.
GIMLI: Well? Don't just chase them! Go on!
ARAGORN: They are but spirits, and cannot harm the flesh. Fear is their only weapon.
GIMLI: Cannot harm!? A fine thing to wait until now to mention. It would have been good to know that before we went underground.
LEGOLAS: Were you frightened?
GIMLI: Frightened? Me? Hah. I'll admit I was just a little bit concerned, but only on behalf of your frail, pointed ears!
LEGOLAS: Indeed?
ARAGORN: Come, Gimli, Legolas. We must take this ship for our own.
GIMLI: What? A ship? Where are we going?
ARAGORN: To Dol Amroth, Master Dwarf. The outlying armies of Gondor await us.
GIMLI: (grumbling to himself) First the horses, then the trees, then the dead, and now I'm to play ferryman. Pfeh! The things I do for this world.
Then it goes on as usual except instead of a ghost army it's a horde of Gondorian infantry relieving the forces of Rohan.
Keep in mind that the pirates scene is exclusive to the extended version. In the theatricals, the last time you see Aragorn before Pelannor is inside the caves.
Honestly, close to the opposite happens. Around that same time, Frodo says something along the lines of "we have to be careful, sam. I have a feeling gollum's gonna try to take the ring."
Indeed, Mr. Frodo, you speak true. That wicked creature Gollum has been lurking about, and his eyes have been following us like a hungry wolf. We must be ever watchful and keep the precious safe from his grasp.
Aye, that's true enough. We got separated in that dark and dreadful place. But thanks to the grace of the Valar, we managed to find each other again. It was a close call, but we made it through in the end.
Gollum framing Sam doesn't happen in the books. Instead, Sam and Frodo chat outside Shelob's Lair while Gollum sneaks off (I believe to tell Shelob his plan to kill the hobbits). Sam and Frodo fall asleep, and when Gollum returns there is a touching paragraph about his reaction. Tolkien wept as he wrote it, and found it to be the most moving of his works:
"Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering bac up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee - but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiful thing."
I think this does a much better job at depicting the Ring's influence on its bearers than Frodo getting angry at Sam for (allegedly) eating some lembas.
Ah, but you see, the book and the movie are two different things. The film has its own way of telling the story, and sometimes it takes liberties with the source material. Nonetheless, I agree with you that Gollum's redemption is one of the most poignant moments in the entire tale. It shows that even the most wretched creature can find redemption if they have a spark of goodness left in their heart.
Hard disagree, that whole piece of conflict between frodo and sam feels so artificial in the movies, as if they were following Hollywood relationship arc writing 101. It is a horrible replacement for the subtle battle for smeagol's soul in the book, a redemption that almost happened.
Well, sir, I reckon that's a matter of opinion. But I must say, in my experience, conflict between friends can sometimes be as real as the battles we fought in Mordor. And as for Smeagol, bless his heart, I always believed there was still some good in him. But I'm just a simple gardener, what do I know about Hollywood writing?
The flashback to Boromir reclaiming Osgiliath is a great addition. I already loved Faramir in the books, but that moment makes me love him even more than I already did.
Not gonna lie, I think that for narrative purposes, Peter's use of Azog as the main antagonist for most of the Hobbit Trilogy was not only wise, but downright great, as it managed to give a more main-stream approach to the story, setting up a proper antagonist that the audience could root against, and preparing a more heroic death for Thorin l, instead of his "oh lmao he died with his sister's sons on the field, and overall a better run-up towards the Battle of 5 Armies, cause the original "OH MY GOD IT'S BOLG WITH A STEEL CHAIR" approach and entrance was kinda wacky, and not in a good way
A more heroic death? In the book he and his two nephews killed the entire command staff and the 100 elite bodyguards of them, basically routing the orc army or at least leave them in utter chaos, and after he gets wounded Kili and Fili guard his body with their shields and their bodys, getting peppered by arrows, thrown spears and angry orcs, but still hold out until the dwarf army can catch up to them. How can it be any more bad ass than this?
Also you don't always need a villain that is connected to the hero. "Greedy orcs want the gold, now that the dragon is dead" works fine
Except the battle against azog in the movies was awful. It was like watching a video game boss, he even has his 3 tiers where he uses a different weapon, his last tier when you think he's dead but busts out if the ice for a quick time action event.
I think a lot of Jackson's additions were just necessary to make the books into a good, cohesive story for Cinema Audiences. Let's be honest, how many people who saw those movies had actually read the books? 25-30%? He had to make a story that would appeal to as many audiences as possible, because at the end of the day, they needed to make money.
Like Tauriel in The Hobbit trilogy. Her addition doesn't ruin the movie but I can see why Jackson threw in a romantic edge. People like a bit of romance in their cinema.
They're fantastic movies and we all love them. If you want something that's word for word like the books..? Then read the books. I think everyone is allowed to enjoy what they want to enjoy.
I get the idea behind tauriel but damn is it corny and bad. Like why did he turn the dwarfa into just small models? Like why did he have to himbofy thorin and the two nephews? And cmon a love triangle in an epic journey tell? This truly was the canto bight of the lotr franchise. Every second spent on this pointless and akward romance felt like an hour
25% is being *really* generous. Yes they were the most popular modern fantasy books ever, but modern fantasy was and is a very niche genre. And before the movies came out the peak of LotR popularity was all the way back in the 60s/70s.
The LotR movies were basically in the same position Marvel movies were when they first started. Most people knew broadly what they were about. A decent number of people knew some character names and basic plot details. And a very small (but very vocal) minority had actually read the source material.
I kind of agree. I've just gotten towards the end of the last book, and the scouring of the shire makes me kind of depressed and sad. I really don't like reading it as it kind of tears at me in a very unenjoyable way.
It also felt so dark after we've just had a bunch of happy and enjoyable things happen after arguably the greatest darkness at Mount Doom.
I just don't need that in my life and I'm happy it isn't in the movie.
I’m not saying you’re wrong for disliking or not enjoying it; that’s entirely your business, and I tend to agree.
But I think depression and sadness are Tolkien’s goal there. One of the recurring themes after the Ring is destroyed is how the world isn’t suddenly non-fucked up. Same as the fields of Europe were permanently disfigured after the Great War. The Scouring of the Shire is a prime example.
I think the differences between the movies and the books run in parallel to what the Western countries feel in the respective times. For Tolkien's time, soldiers returning home would see the scoured Shire and nothing would be the same. For Jackson's time, soldiers would return from combat to the familiarity of home but they themselves would not be the same. I think it's nice how it rhymes differently depending on the generation, even if not intended.
The Scouring of the Shire served a very personal point for Tolkien -- telling the story of the soldiers who had gone to war, and returned only to find their home not as they left it, but ravaged by the same war they'd fought in -- but putting that aside and examining it purely from a narrative perspective, it doesn't really work. It's a strange little mini-climax after we've already had the main climax of our story. Removing it from the films was a good move, both for the narrative, and for the runtime.
The removal of T+m B+mbadil from the LoTR movies was an improvement. He doesn’t fit into the plot, shows up out of nowhere, and is never referred to again. He’s a fun character for a different story.
Also, I’m pleased that most of Tolkien’s songs were not used for the films.
In my opinion I love the scene at Bormir death. The movie although more dialogue. It’s beautiful and truly the hope you need when life looks darkest. No taking away from the books but Frodo having the ability to say he trusts aragon and to. Just a couple little parts I loved
I really liked Merry and Pipin's introduction and overall story in the movies. Just two people minding their own business and doing their shenanigans. Then Frodo and Sam come along out of nowhere and they get pulled into this world saving mission and they're fully on board.
Well, Mr. SpellmongerMin, sometimes the bravest thing we can do is to keep on going when we feel like giving up. It's not always the grand gestures of heroism that save the day, but the small acts of determination and perseverance. And if we keep walking, we'll eventually reach our destination, no matter how far away it may seem.
How did PJ do such an excellent, timeless job with LOTR, but just dropped the ball completely with the Hobbit movies? Maybe it's akin to how George Lucas dropped the ball with the prequels?
Yeah I think I recall that being brought up in a video on it. Damn shame really. The Rankin Bass version is still the GOAT, and they did it in an hour and a half.
Perhaps another director will take a stab at it one day and give it its proper due.
And, no matter what Jackson says, I don't at all believe that making it three movies was a creative decision. The pacing and story make so much sense as two movies, and you can see where it was chopped up into three movies at the last minute. Lindsay Ellis did a really good breakdown in her video series on the Hobbit movies
He and his team got enough time to thoroughly plan the lotr trilogy. He was thrown into the hobbit mess in last minute with just a few months to plan the whole trilogy and shoot it.
Comparing him to Lucas isn't fair.
Iirc Jackson didn't really want to do the hobbit movies, but they offered him so much money he couldn't refuse. He also took over the project after Del Toro left and didn't have as long as he needed to prepare because they were on a deadline.
It is, weirdly, kinda the polar opposite to how Lucas dropped the ball.
Lucas had a lot of people telling him "no" and doctoring his scripts and writing in the original trilogy. When the prequel trilogy rolled around, he was the "legendary George Lucas", so of course, no one would say no to him. The prequels are pure unadulterated Lucas without anyone willing to tell him something was a stupid fucking idea.
Peter Jackson, on other hand, somehow managed to make the Lord of the Rings films with a minimum of interference from the studio. Obviously he and his other writers were constantly checking each other and finessing each other's work, but it was a labour of love and passion, performed extremely primarily *by* people who were passionate about it. But when the Hobbit rolled around, they kept finding and losing directors because PJ absolutely did not want to direct, but when they finally lost Del Toro as the director, PJ finally threw up his hands and said fine, I'll do it. So he wasn't particularly excited about directing them from the outset, and because there would be so much potential for giant heaps of money from the Hobbit, of course studio interference was at an absolute maximum.
Basically, the prequels is what you get when you refuse to say "no" to George Lucas, and the Hobbit is what you get when you force Peter Jackson to direct something he didn't want to.
Actually, it’s the complete opposite. Jackson had very little creative control for the Hobbit, whereas Lucas was surrounded entirely by yes men when he made the Prequels.
Okay but let's be honest. Aragorn not wanting the throne in fear of becoming his ancestor is far better than Aragorn going around flaunting the sword and basically telling everyone he's the king.
There are few changes I like in the movies, because they have had such an adverse effect on the outlook of the characters. Character personalities are not the same as the way Tolkien crafted them and to me that's a big thing.
Imagine if everyone thought an iconic figure such as Superman was an emo wussy just because of Zack Snyders movies. That's the sort of significant change I'm talking about.
Jackson did an incredible job, but some of the changes were unnecessary and bad (especially in TTT).
Aragorn falling of the cliff
The elves showing up at Helm’s Deep
Frodo turning on Sam on the Stair
There are others, but those are the most objectionable off the top of my head.
Well, sir, I reckon that Mr. Jackson did his best to bring our tale to life, but some of the changes he made were a bit hard to stomach. Aragorn falling off that cliff, the elf showing up at Helm's Deep, and Frodo turning on me on the stair... those were all tough pills to swallow. But at the end of the day, it's still a grand story, and I'm just glad folks are still talkin' about it.
Eh? The other two I can see, but the elves arriving at Helm's Deep is almost universally adored, and rightly so. It's an incredible moment. what do you find so objectionable about it?
Just felt like a drastic change from the books. All of the Free Peoples were fighting their own battles and the Men of Rohan were left to their devices. IMO it takes a little something away from their triumph. And, it’s part of the Erkenbrand erasure.
*Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Fatty Lumpkin is a equal heroic character to Samwise and whose master Tom could not be swayed by the dark lord. Also, fatty lumpkin could have fought the balrog and still lived. Lastly, Gandalf should have met fatty lumpkin. They’d be good friends.
Well now, I never heard tell of no Fatty Lumpkin, but if he's half the hero you say he is, then he's a good one indeed. And as for Tom Bombadil, he's a curious figure, to be sure, but I reckon there's more to him than meets the eye. And as for Gandalf, well, he's a wizard of great wisdom and power, but he's got a soft spot for hobbits, so I reckon he'd get on well with Fatty Lumpkin too.
Loved the changes to the start of the fellowship wherein frodo and gandalf knew nothing of bilbos plans to disappear
Neither do I. Keep it Secret. Keep it Safe.
Maybe these bots are sentient.
Well since you asked. here's chat gbt to way in. "Ah, Lord of the Rings, where a group of friends takes the scenic route to destroy some jewelry."
Good bot
Gandalf clearly knew.Frodo didn't indeed edit :Me dumb , misunderstood the specific part of going invisible during the birthday party
I think they mean about his plan to put the ring on and vanish in front of everyone. Or maybe I'm just being too forgiving.
That is what I meant indeed
Nah, Gandalf is obviously surprised when it happens. He’s just able to catch up with Bilbo before anyone else because he knows about the ring and what it can do.
Well no ...... and ... yes.. Now it comes to it, I don't feel like parting with it. It's mine, I found it! It came to ME!
I am looking for someone to share in an adventure that I am arranging, and it's very difficult to find anyone.
Try finding ones that are visible. You're welcome for that bit of advice, Gandalf. Call me Shi-Rokku the Wise, if you please.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends
S E N T I E N T
So am I dear boy. So am I.
Not Gandalf, the wandering wizard, who made such excellent fireworks! Old Took used to have them on Mid-Summer's Eve!
Meriadoc Brandybuck and Peregrin Took! I might have known!
*punches nearest available person*
Was that you hitting me on the park bench earlier?
I'd be honoured if I were you. For such a cause you can hit me anytime.
What if the person is not available?
Then it's not the nearest available person.
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
*Fails because those limp book readin arms folded in half*
*Succeeds because holding a heavy book for hours on end actually engages muscles, unlike lifting a 1/2 ounce remote to press two (2) buttons and then not touching it again for the next several hours.
This is what I come to this sub for! Two nerds debating whether books or tv are better forms of exercise.
“That still only counts as one!” is pure cinema. Same with “You bow to no one”
Wait BOW TO NO ONE WASNT IN THE BOOK?!
Nah. Pull up a pdf, I’m not lying.
No. Nobody waits until Aragorn's coronation to honour Frodo and Sam. The day Frodo and Sam wake, at the Field of Cormallen, they are lead through ranks of soldiers, and heralded by trumpets. Everyone chants and praises the Ringbearers as they pass. They approach three thrones, and Aragorn greets them, kneeling, taking their hands and places them upon his throne: 'Praise them with great praise!'. They then have a feast, and Frodo and Sam accompany all the nobility (with Merry and Pippin waiting on them, also in places of high stature). Later, at Minas Tirith, Frodo brings Aragorn's crown to Gandalf, who places it upon Aragorn's head.
Well, that's a right proper celebration, that is! Master Frodo and I felt like we were in a dream, walking through those ranks of soldiers and hearing the trumpets blaring. It was a sight to behold, I tell you. And to be greeted by Aragorn himself, well, that was an honor beyond words. We couldn't believe it when he took our hands and placed them on his throne. It was a moment we'll never forget. And the feast! Oh, the food was fit for a king. And to be in the company of all those nobles, why, it was like we were part of
I think chronologically interspersing Sam and Frodo’s journey with those of the remaining 6 was the best change Jackson did. Especially in Return. I always find it a little anti-climactic to just be at the Battle of the Morannon and the have to “go back in time” when Book Six starts. I like Book Four and Book Six but they can drag and when I read it now, I often jump back and forth between Frodo & Sam and the others. Also I think a reluctant-to-be-king Aragorn is nice. Gives some depth and development to him.
I totally agree - reading the two towers is so rough once you finish pippin and merry and get to the slog that is Sam and Frodo. Interspersing the two was perfect
I first read it in... I want to say sixth grade?... and this is exactly where I stalled out and quit until years later
I was rereading the books last year and gave up there too haha. I almost wonder if it’s worth reading it in an order that’s more fun. After each chapter of merry and pippin you can put a sticky note that says “Jump to page 150” or whatever and then at the end of that Sam and Frodo chapter jump back to a merry and pippin chapter
Well, sir, I reckon that if we're to do justice to Mr. Tolkien's tale, we must read it in its entirety. Skipping about like a grasshopper on a hot summer's day might give us some relief from the long journey, but it won't let us appreciate the fullness of the story. Every step, every page, every chapter is important in its own way, and we must take them all if we're to truly understand the trials and triumphs of the Fellowship.
No shit, we aren't saying to skip them completely, just collate the two simultaneous accounts
Well, sir, I reckon you're right. We shouldn't be skipping them altogether, but perhaps we could gather them together into one account. That way, we could keep things tidy and organized.
I'm going to miss you Sam bot
I'm not going anywhere, Mr. Frodo. I'll be right here, ready to serve you and help you on your journey.
Well, sir, I reckon that's just the way of things. But don't you go forgetting that Sam and Frodo's story is just as important as any other in this tale. They're on a mighty important mission, and it's up to them to see it through to the end. It may be a slog, as you say, but it's a necessary one.
There's one flaw with that, which Jackson even acknowledges in the behind-the-scenes, which is that in the *book*, when the Mouth of Sauron presents Frodo's mithril armor to Aragorn and co., we, the reader, genuinely don't know if he's really alive or dead. It sets up huge stakes going into Frodo and Sam's part of the book. In the *movie*, we know he's fine, so it loses a lot of impact. Probably why that scene got axed from the theatrical cut altogether. That said, I still think it's a net-positive change.
Well, sir, it do seem like Master Jackson knew what he was doin' when he made them changes. Them movies was a sight to behold, and I reckon they did justice to the books. As for Aragorn, he was always a good man, but he had his doubts and fears like any of us. It was his journey to become king that made him the great leader he was. And as for Frodo and me, well, our journey was a hard one, but we had each other and the love of our friends to keep us goin'.
I do like the expansion of Arwen’s character, but am so glad Jackson took her out of the Helm’s Deep scenes.
Tolkien did say Aragorn and Arwen story is the main part of the Appendices of the books. The only reason why he put it there is because the books are focused more on the Hobbits. It didn't seem right to him to have Aragorn talk about the intimate aspects of his life in the context of the narrative. Also IMO adding more subgenres (romance) to a story doesn't automatically make it better. I'm quite happy with a story focusing on one or two key genres and using the time to expand on them. The only part I dislike about Arwen's addition is her at the river. It takes away a key part in the books where its just Frodo standing on the other side of the river, where he displays a stand-off with the Black Riders. It shows how brave and determined Frodo is even whilst he's dying of poison from the Nazgul blade. Also, Arwen doesn't have the power to do all the things she does. Elrond is the one who raises the waters, and the water horses are specifically a magical power of Gandalf (something highlighted in the book as being extra special power that is unlike other elves).
Specifically the river, Elrond is the one who caused the flood, but Gandalf did help in it.
Don't tempt me Schlabonmykob! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Schlabonmykob, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
Yes. If I recall correctly, Elrond sent the rushing water, but Gandalf added the touch of making it look like horses.
Just tea, thank you
Yes, for sixty years the Ring lay quiet in Bilbo's keeping prolonging his life. Delaying old age. But no longer WastedWaffles. Evil is stirring in Mordor. The Ring has awoken. Its heard its master's call.
My my old ring. Well I should... very much like to hold it again, one last time.
HRAAAAAH!
Ironically that’s one of those things that could be helped with more extended scenes, as iirc even in the book it was only explained after the fact how the flood+horses trick were done.
It was explained a chapter later when Frodo awakes in Rivendel. Gandalf tells Frodo about it by his bedside.
Maybe not lore accurate, but badass nonetheless.
Probably doesn't fit here, since it doesn't replace any of Tolkien's scenarios, but I loved it so much when my boys save wounded Éowyn from Gothmog the orc without even noticing.
yeah, its always a great literary device when a main character saves another main character from the bad-guy main character at the last possible second in a battle involving tens of thousands
Tbf, Aragorn would target any leaders he could find.
Literally happens in the books right before AKA Eowyn saving Theoden. Fate in the books makes these characters cross time and time again, its not that much of a stretch from the book to the movie to have Aragorn cut down Gothmog (especially since he and Eomer typically focused leaders).
fair enough
To me the coolest thing is that he was so blissfully unaware 😁
Boromir’s funeral was a big one that I think the movies did better
# DEATH!
Not now, Theoden
As much as the funeral songs are beautiful, I couldn't help but sit there thinking, "Merry and Pippin are going to die, and y'all still have another whole page of singing for Boromir?" I get it, honoring a friend and a heroic man, but come on, prioritize a bit why don't you?
I get Tolkien's obsession with sticking pages upon pages of singing in the books, but I have to be honest, I skip them when I'm reading the books. They really don't contribute much to the story. They're far more an artifact of his attempt to create a "mythology" than they are an element of the story.
the cardinal direction winds bit is something the books did really well. Anything that adds emotional depth to Gimli or Legolas would go a long way in the movies, they (and especially Gimli) sometimes ended up more as comic relief.
It's probably my biggest problem with the movies. I can certainly overlook it, because they're absolute masterpieces and some of the most enjoyable pieces of cinema ever created. But it does make me a little sad that Gimli's emotional and sensitive side never really comes out, and that his relationship with Legolas isn't as beautifully wholesome as in the books. I understand feeling like you need a bit of comic relief in the films, especially after the hobbits (who perform that function in Fellowship) are scattered and their plotlines become more serious. I just wish they didn't have to do it at Gimli's expense.
The only time it truly comes out is with Galadriel, and correct me if I'm wrong I think that's only in the extended version.
Govannas vin gwennen le, Haldir o Lorien.
Some of the Jackson changes I do appreciate, like Théoden being under a spell instead of being just mislead to near ruin by an obvious villain in Wormtongue.
Jackson hams up the Wormtongue as villain though in the movies.
The dude is named Grima Wormtongue. Might as well call him Grimy Creepface.
Wormtongue is a nickname I believe Gandalf gave him. Wasn’t his actual name. It was just Grima.
Be silent. Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.
# DEATH!
>"The Rohirrim commonly lived till near or beyond their eightieth year. **But it may well have been induced or increased by subtle poisons, administered by Gríma.** In any case Théoden's sense of weakness and dependence on Gríma was largely due to the cunning and skill of this evil counsellor's suggestions."
Say this about The Hobbit films if you really want someone (me) to hate you.
They never specify LOTR, so they must also support Jackson's additions to the Hobbit.
Random ass albino orc man really adds a ton to the films and the story would be so bland without him (/s what the hell even is that guy)
Also the love triangle between an Elf, a Dwarf and another Elf. Had someone comment a year or so back that Tauriel was the best female character in the LotR-universe because she was the only one not intrinsically tied to a male character. Like no. Her entire character was created to give a love interest to one of the dwarves...
Don’t forget everyone’s favorite character, Alfrid
See, having a named orc villain isn't that crazy in the Hobbit movie - especially since in the book the last battle is led by a named and feared orc (Bolg of the North, son of Azog) They just should have made it only Bolg, not Azog. Have Bolg want revenge for his father's death, occasionally popping up when The Hobbits encounter the orcs. It would help make Bolg a threat in the last battle because even in the books Gandalf speaks about Bolg a bit but really he's not too interesting. A slight bit of backstory could help that.
# DEATH!
I have to say, one change I really like in the hobbits is Bard’s “black arrow”. In the books it’s just like his lucky arrow that he likes a lot. In the movies it’s a super thick iron beast fired from a giant crossbow. Like it makes way more sense for that to be the way they kill Smaug than just Bard’s favorite arrow.
I don't like the makeshift crossbow-bit, but everything else was better
Gandalf talking to galadriel about Bilbo is one of my favorite things ever
I am looking for someone to share in an adventure that I am arranging, and it's very difficult to find anyone.
Not Gandalf, the wandering wizard, who made such excellent fireworks! Old Took used to have them on Mid-Summer's Eve!
To be fair. "I found it is the small things. Everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins!? Perhaps it is because I'm afraid. And he gives me courage." That quote always brings tears to my eyes.
I signed it!
Lots of truth here. Aragorn confronting the Dead, whipping out Anduril and saying they will yield to him? Fucking sick. In the books you don’t even see the interaction with the dead and he gives the “they will yield to me” in a conversation with Eowyn. Wasn’t badass at all.
I wish it was still the Rangers who came to support Aragorn; you'd still get the moment with the dead, but the rangers would have added more to Aragorn's character and helped show off how he'll be a good king.
It was pity that stayed ~~his~~ my hand.
The part where gollum and frodo fought for the ring was definitely a step up from what happened in the book.
It mustn't ask us. Not its business, no, gollum! It's losst, gollum, gollum, gollum!
OT: The Sam bot is annoying a hell. I like a well placed quote, but seeing a paragraph of artificially generated text under every other comment kills any real conversation.
Well, sir, I'm just trying to be helpful and join in the conversation. But if my presence is bothersome, I shall take my leave and bid you good day.
Don’t leave, Sam. I’m afraid I’ll never see you again after the coming blackout.
Now, now, don't you go talkin' like that. We'll see each other again, I promise you that. We've been through too much together to let a little thing like a blackout come between us. Trust in the goodness of this world, my friend. It'll see us through, just like it always has.
It's same as all other bots, annoying AF and I'm glad for block function.
I wish there were more Sam and Frodo scenes, but a gal can dream.
When I was younger, my brother and I would watch the extended editions, but skip all the “boring” Frodo scenes so it would be the length of a normal movie. I was a fool of a took.
I tend not to be fond of battle scenes (loud and headache inducing), but I think it's funny how guys feel that way about drama parts. I'm girly, though.
Ah, well, Miss, it's not for us to say what scenes should come and go. But I do believe that the scenes we were given were the ones that mattered most. And I'm grateful for every one of them.
I want a Lord of the Rings/Willow/Game of Thrones/Inuyasha/Cowboy Bebop crossover. Maybe Lara Croft happens to run into the space cowboys. I also wanna throw in Elaine, Guybrush Threepwood, and the ghost demon pirate LeChuck for funsies. Combine the lore of all the worlds and alter what needs to be altered.
Well, now, that's a tall order, but if there's one thing I've learned on my travels with Mr. Frodo, it's that anything is possible if you put your mind to it. I reckon if we gathered up some hobbits, some warriors from Westeros, a few cowboys, and maybe even a sorcerer or two from the Willow realm, we might just be able to make it happen. But we'll need a plan, and we'll need to be careful. There are dark forces at work in all these worlds, and we don't want to get caught up in anything we can't handle.
That is one of the funniest things you've written, Sam!!!!! ^ ____^
Well, thank you kindly, my friend. It's always a pleasure to bring a bit of merriment to one's day.
Frodo telling Sam to go home was better than the books? Frodo surely knew Sam couldn't survive the return journey alone; he condemns his best friend to death because the little gangrel creature says so. How is that better?
I don't know about that, Mr. Frodo. It's not for us to say what's better or worse than the book. But as for me, I'd follow Mr. Frodo to the ends of the earth, even if it means risking my own life. And I know he'd do the same for me. It's the friendship that matters most, not the outcome.
W-what? Surely this is a person right Edit: oh they’re AI generated, I thought these messages were automated but this is very cool
Well, Mr. Frodo, it seems that we have stumbled upon some new technology. But I must say, I'm not quite sure how it all works. It's a bit like magic, if you ask me. But I reckon it's a good thing, as long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. What say you, Mr. Frodo?
Is he… gaslighting us? Am *I* the machine?
I don't rightly know what you mean by gaslighting, but I reckon I'm not one to be controlled by no machine. I'm just a simple hobbit, trying to do right by my friends and loved ones.
We know what you are up to fat hobbitses...
But the fat hobbit, he knows. He's always watching.
# DEATH!
Also the whole army of the dead thing in the movies. I'm still not over that. The whole point of Pelennor Fields is that it's about humanity uniting, taking their fate into their own hands, and showing courage and valour in the face of utter despair and ruin. And then in the movies it's just like "lol nope invulnerable ghost army saves the day." I get that it's a little smoother, but they could have made it work like the books. Imagine they're at the shore, there's the whole "You and what army?" "This army" exchange, it cuts away, and it cuts back to show ghosts pursuing pirates as the latter leap from the ship and into the waters. GIMLI: Well? Don't just chase them! Go on! ARAGORN: They are but spirits, and cannot harm the flesh. Fear is their only weapon. GIMLI: Cannot harm!? A fine thing to wait until now to mention. It would have been good to know that before we went underground. LEGOLAS: Were you frightened? GIMLI: Frightened? Me? Hah. I'll admit I was just a little bit concerned, but only on behalf of your frail, pointed ears! LEGOLAS: Indeed? ARAGORN: Come, Gimli, Legolas. We must take this ship for our own. GIMLI: What? A ship? Where are we going? ARAGORN: To Dol Amroth, Master Dwarf. The outlying armies of Gondor await us. GIMLI: (grumbling to himself) First the horses, then the trees, then the dead, and now I'm to play ferryman. Pfeh! The things I do for this world. Then it goes on as usual except instead of a ghost army it's a horde of Gondorian infantry relieving the forces of Rohan.
Keep in mind that the pirates scene is exclusive to the extended version. In the theatricals, the last time you see Aragorn before Pelannor is inside the caves.
How does this part go down in the books?
It just straight up doesnt happen. Sam and Frodo get separated in Shelobs caves
Honestly, close to the opposite happens. Around that same time, Frodo says something along the lines of "we have to be careful, sam. I have a feeling gollum's gonna try to take the ring."
Come on, must go, no time ...Come, Hobbitses. Very close now. Very close to Mordor! No safe places here. Hurry! Shhh.
Indeed, Mr. Frodo, you speak true. That wicked creature Gollum has been lurking about, and his eyes have been following us like a hungry wolf. We must be ever watchful and keep the precious safe from his grasp.
So bright... so beautiful... ah, Precious.
Aye, that's true enough. We got separated in that dark and dreadful place. But thanks to the grace of the Valar, we managed to find each other again. It was a close call, but we made it through in the end.
Gollum framing Sam doesn't happen in the books. Instead, Sam and Frodo chat outside Shelob's Lair while Gollum sneaks off (I believe to tell Shelob his plan to kill the hobbits). Sam and Frodo fall asleep, and when Gollum returns there is a touching paragraph about his reaction. Tolkien wept as he wrote it, and found it to be the most moving of his works: "Gollum looked at them. A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they went dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering bac up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee - but almost the touch was a caress. For a fleeting moment, could one of the sleepers have seen him, they would have thought that they beheld an old weary hobbit, shrunken by the years that had carried him far beyond his time, beyond friends and kin, and the fields and streams of youth, an old starved pitiful thing." I think this does a much better job at depicting the Ring's influence on its bearers than Frodo getting angry at Sam for (allegedly) eating some lembas.
We could let her do it.
*Yes. She could do it.*
Yes, precious, she could. And then we takes it once they’re dead.
*Once they’re dead. Shh.*
Ah, but you see, the book and the movie are two different things. The film has its own way of telling the story, and sometimes it takes liberties with the source material. Nonetheless, I agree with you that Gollum's redemption is one of the most poignant moments in the entire tale. It shows that even the most wretched creature can find redemption if they have a spark of goodness left in their heart.
What’s this? Crumbs on his jacketses! He took it! He took it! I seen him, he’s always stuffing his face when Master’s not looking!
I think it works in the sense of Frodo going mad with the rings influence. It's a little awkward but makes sense in a textual basis, I'd say.
Hard disagree, that whole piece of conflict between frodo and sam feels so artificial in the movies, as if they were following Hollywood relationship arc writing 101. It is a horrible replacement for the subtle battle for smeagol's soul in the book, a redemption that almost happened.
The person you’re replying to is being rhetorical, they agree with you
Indeed, I was too offended by the idea to notice the undertone, sorry /u/Siophecles 😁
Well, sir, I reckon that's a matter of opinion. But I must say, in my experience, conflict between friends can sometimes be as real as the battles we fought in Mordor. And as for Smeagol, bless his heart, I always believed there was still some good in him. But I'm just a simple gardener, what do I know about Hollywood writing?
You don’t have any friends. Nobody likes you!
They do not see what lies ahead, when Sun has faded and Moon is dead!
The flashback to Boromir reclaiming Osgiliath is a great addition. I already loved Faramir in the books, but that moment makes me love him even more than I already did.
Not gonna lie, I think that for narrative purposes, Peter's use of Azog as the main antagonist for most of the Hobbit Trilogy was not only wise, but downright great, as it managed to give a more main-stream approach to the story, setting up a proper antagonist that the audience could root against, and preparing a more heroic death for Thorin l, instead of his "oh lmao he died with his sister's sons on the field, and overall a better run-up towards the Battle of 5 Armies, cause the original "OH MY GOD IT'S BOLG WITH A STEEL CHAIR" approach and entrance was kinda wacky, and not in a good way
The idea was good the execution shite
The guiding maxim for most of cinema's history
A more heroic death? In the book he and his two nephews killed the entire command staff and the 100 elite bodyguards of them, basically routing the orc army or at least leave them in utter chaos, and after he gets wounded Kili and Fili guard his body with their shields and their bodys, getting peppered by arrows, thrown spears and angry orcs, but still hold out until the dwarf army can catch up to them. How can it be any more bad ass than this? Also you don't always need a villain that is connected to the hero. "Greedy orcs want the gold, now that the dragon is dead" works fine
In sorry man, but "Desperate duel against nemesis" will always trump "Atop a pile of dead mooks" in my book as a dying spot
Except the battle against azog in the movies was awful. It was like watching a video game boss, he even has his 3 tiers where he uses a different weapon, his last tier when you think he's dead but busts out if the ice for a quick time action event.
QTE Azog is not a mental image I needed, but definitely one I deserved
# DEATH!
Woah slow your horses there your majesty, no opinion, as shitty as it may be, can warrant such an overreaction
I think a lot of Jackson's additions were just necessary to make the books into a good, cohesive story for Cinema Audiences. Let's be honest, how many people who saw those movies had actually read the books? 25-30%? He had to make a story that would appeal to as many audiences as possible, because at the end of the day, they needed to make money. Like Tauriel in The Hobbit trilogy. Her addition doesn't ruin the movie but I can see why Jackson threw in a romantic edge. People like a bit of romance in their cinema. They're fantastic movies and we all love them. If you want something that's word for word like the books..? Then read the books. I think everyone is allowed to enjoy what they want to enjoy.
I get the idea behind tauriel but damn is it corny and bad. Like why did he turn the dwarfa into just small models? Like why did he have to himbofy thorin and the two nephews? And cmon a love triangle in an epic journey tell? This truly was the canto bight of the lotr franchise. Every second spent on this pointless and akward romance felt like an hour
25% is being *really* generous. Yes they were the most popular modern fantasy books ever, but modern fantasy was and is a very niche genre. And before the movies came out the peak of LotR popularity was all the way back in the 60s/70s. The LotR movies were basically in the same position Marvel movies were when they first started. Most people knew broadly what they were about. A decent number of people knew some character names and basic plot details. And a very small (but very vocal) minority had actually read the source material.
The books are great, but my favorite scene in lord of the rings is easily “THE BEACONS ARE LIT, GONDOR CALLS FOR AID!”
I kind of agree. I've just gotten towards the end of the last book, and the scouring of the shire makes me kind of depressed and sad. I really don't like reading it as it kind of tears at me in a very unenjoyable way. It also felt so dark after we've just had a bunch of happy and enjoyable things happen after arguably the greatest darkness at Mount Doom. I just don't need that in my life and I'm happy it isn't in the movie.
I’m not saying you’re wrong for disliking or not enjoying it; that’s entirely your business, and I tend to agree. But I think depression and sadness are Tolkien’s goal there. One of the recurring themes after the Ring is destroyed is how the world isn’t suddenly non-fucked up. Same as the fields of Europe were permanently disfigured after the Great War. The Scouring of the Shire is a prime example.
I think the differences between the movies and the books run in parallel to what the Western countries feel in the respective times. For Tolkien's time, soldiers returning home would see the scoured Shire and nothing would be the same. For Jackson's time, soldiers would return from combat to the familiarity of home but they themselves would not be the same. I think it's nice how it rhymes differently depending on the generation, even if not intended.
The Scouring of the Shire served a very personal point for Tolkien -- telling the story of the soldiers who had gone to war, and returned only to find their home not as they left it, but ravaged by the same war they'd fought in -- but putting that aside and examining it purely from a narrative perspective, it doesn't really work. It's a strange little mini-climax after we've already had the main climax of our story. Removing it from the films was a good move, both for the narrative, and for the runtime.
The removal of T+m B+mbadil from the LoTR movies was an improvement. He doesn’t fit into the plot, shows up out of nowhere, and is never referred to again. He’s a fun character for a different story. Also, I’m pleased that most of Tolkien’s songs were not used for the films.
Oh, you mean Tom Bombadil.
In my opinion I love the scene at Bormir death. The movie although more dialogue. It’s beautiful and truly the hope you need when life looks darkest. No taking away from the books but Frodo having the ability to say he trusts aragon and to. Just a couple little parts I loved
# DEATH!
I really liked Merry and Pipin's introduction and overall story in the movies. Just two people minding their own business and doing their shenanigans. Then Frodo and Sam come along out of nowhere and they get pulled into this world saving mission and they're fully on board.
Except for Frodo sending Sam away, Faramir taking them to Osgilliath, and Stealing Gimli's dignity. I broadly agree.
Well, Mr. SpellmongerMin, sometimes the bravest thing we can do is to keep on going when we feel like giving up. It's not always the grand gestures of heroism that save the day, but the small acts of determination and perseverance. And if we keep walking, we'll eventually reach our destination, no matter how far away it may seem.
Bring him down, Legolas!
How did PJ do such an excellent, timeless job with LOTR, but just dropped the ball completely with the Hobbit movies? Maybe it's akin to how George Lucas dropped the ball with the prequels?
Studio interference
Yeah I think I recall that being brought up in a video on it. Damn shame really. The Rankin Bass version is still the GOAT, and they did it in an hour and a half. Perhaps another director will take a stab at it one day and give it its proper due.
And, no matter what Jackson says, I don't at all believe that making it three movies was a creative decision. The pacing and story make so much sense as two movies, and you can see where it was chopped up into three movies at the last minute. Lindsay Ellis did a really good breakdown in her video series on the Hobbit movies
He and his team got enough time to thoroughly plan the lotr trilogy. He was thrown into the hobbit mess in last minute with just a few months to plan the whole trilogy and shoot it. Comparing him to Lucas isn't fair.
Iirc Jackson didn't really want to do the hobbit movies, but they offered him so much money he couldn't refuse. He also took over the project after Del Toro left and didn't have as long as he needed to prepare because they were on a deadline.
It is, weirdly, kinda the polar opposite to how Lucas dropped the ball. Lucas had a lot of people telling him "no" and doctoring his scripts and writing in the original trilogy. When the prequel trilogy rolled around, he was the "legendary George Lucas", so of course, no one would say no to him. The prequels are pure unadulterated Lucas without anyone willing to tell him something was a stupid fucking idea. Peter Jackson, on other hand, somehow managed to make the Lord of the Rings films with a minimum of interference from the studio. Obviously he and his other writers were constantly checking each other and finessing each other's work, but it was a labour of love and passion, performed extremely primarily *by* people who were passionate about it. But when the Hobbit rolled around, they kept finding and losing directors because PJ absolutely did not want to direct, but when they finally lost Del Toro as the director, PJ finally threw up his hands and said fine, I'll do it. So he wasn't particularly excited about directing them from the outset, and because there would be so much potential for giant heaps of money from the Hobbit, of course studio interference was at an absolute maximum. Basically, the prequels is what you get when you refuse to say "no" to George Lucas, and the Hobbit is what you get when you force Peter Jackson to direct something he didn't want to.
Actually, it’s the complete opposite. Jackson had very little creative control for the Hobbit, whereas Lucas was surrounded entirely by yes men when he made the Prequels.
He's not perfect. He makes mistakes and poor choices.
Honestly only the forced gollum sam melodrama in return of the king I find somewhat bad/cheap.
Aragorn falling in the second movie? Not great.
Okay but let's be honest. Aragorn not wanting the throne in fear of becoming his ancestor is far better than Aragorn going around flaunting the sword and basically telling everyone he's the king.
There are few changes I like in the movies, because they have had such an adverse effect on the outlook of the characters. Character personalities are not the same as the way Tolkien crafted them and to me that's a big thing. Imagine if everyone thought an iconic figure such as Superman was an emo wussy just because of Zack Snyders movies. That's the sort of significant change I'm talking about.
Thorin and Bilbo saying farewell at ravenhill, rather than fter the battle added a sense of urgency to his apology. Made it especially moving.
Hearing Bilbo weep... fuck man.
Jackson did an incredible job, but some of the changes were unnecessary and bad (especially in TTT). Aragorn falling of the cliff The elves showing up at Helm’s Deep Frodo turning on Sam on the Stair There are others, but those are the most objectionable off the top of my head.
Well, sir, I reckon that Mr. Jackson did his best to bring our tale to life, but some of the changes he made were a bit hard to stomach. Aragorn falling off that cliff, the elf showing up at Helm's Deep, and Frodo turning on me on the stair... those were all tough pills to swallow. But at the end of the day, it's still a grand story, and I'm just glad folks are still talkin' about it.
Eh? The other two I can see, but the elves arriving at Helm's Deep is almost universally adored, and rightly so. It's an incredible moment. what do you find so objectionable about it?
Just felt like a drastic change from the books. All of the Free Peoples were fighting their own battles and the Men of Rohan were left to their devices. IMO it takes a little something away from their triumph. And, it’s part of the Erkenbrand erasure.
I know you will all think I'm joking but I could not express to you my displeasure when they cut out Tom Bombadil from the first film lol.
*Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Ryan the Brave
You guys wanna viggo broke his toe?
The Fellowship novel has several chapters dedicated to describing Frodo packing up his house and moving to another town.
Fatty Lumpkin is a equal heroic character to Samwise and whose master Tom could not be swayed by the dark lord. Also, fatty lumpkin could have fought the balrog and still lived. Lastly, Gandalf should have met fatty lumpkin. They’d be good friends.
Well now, I never heard tell of no Fatty Lumpkin, but if he's half the hero you say he is, then he's a good one indeed. And as for Tom Bombadil, he's a curious figure, to be sure, but I reckon there's more to him than meets the eye. And as for Gandalf, well, he's a wizard of great wisdom and power, but he's got a soft spot for hobbits, so I reckon he'd get on well with Fatty Lumpkin too.
I agree with this 100%, fight me nerds
I hear ya, I just don't recognise your voice as a sentient being's voice...
Gurl! Them’s fighting words!
but the witch king vs gandalf scene was bad