Want to go through this series with me? 👀 Read along with me! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Two Towers” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/twotowers 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Hey, if you ever need any V.O. work, send me an email. No joke. 🙂 I've also been developing my own hero's journey series over the past six years or so, four books of which are already published. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
These videos strike a good balance between celebrating Jackson's cinematic accomplishments while also reminding us about how much richer and subtler the source material is. Thank you for the hard work!
The box of salt is not in the book at this time. But it's actually featured further on, when Sam makes stew on rabbits that Gollum catches. The text reads as follows: "He still hopefully carried some of his gear in his pack: a small tinder-box, two small shallow pans, the smaller fitting into the larger; inside them a wooden spoon, a short two-pronged fork and some skewers were stowed; and hidden at the bottom of the pack in a flat wooden box a dwindling treasure, some salt."
The box of salt is also mentioned in chapter 3 of _The Fellowship of the Ring,_ 'The Ring Goes South:' --------------- Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything: his chief treasure, his cooking gear; and the little box of salt that he always carried and refilled when he could; ----------------
While Gollum doesn't exactly "attack" them he does cause Sam harm by biting his shoulder when he's holding him down. Another thing I noticed after reading the books for the first time is Sam is much gentler to Gollum in this scene than he is in the movie. When Frodo inspects the rope on Gollum's ankle he finds that it is "hardly tight enough", that Sam was "gentler than his words". Thank you for making these great videos!
I was always under the impression Frodo temporarily lost his sight because of the presence of the unseen Nazgûl influencing his Morgul-blade wound. When Frodo was almost overcome by the injury at the Ford, the only person he could clearly see on the opposite bank was Glorfindel; likewise, Frodo could see the Elven rope when all else around him seemed dark. * * * * ‘It’s good to be able to see again,’ said Frodo, breathing deep. ‘Do you know, I thought for a bit that I had lost my sight? From the lightning or something else worse. I could see nothing, nothing at all, until the grey rope came down. It seemed to shimmer somehow.’ - _The Taming of Sméagol_
I think Frodo was being pulled more and more into the spirit world. Frodo saw Glorfindel because he is mighty in both realms. He saw the rope because it was made by Elves and had a presence in the spirit world.
Really important clarification: Frodo and Sam were NEVER as gullible towards Gollum’s treacherous nature in the books as they were in the films. They KNEW that Gollum would try to betray them at some point but were cautiously optimistic about his change in behavior.
They also never quarreled over trusting Gollum in the books, as they were constantly doing in the films. The only quarrels between them in the books were Frodo reacting angrily to Sam offering to ease his master's burden by carrying the Ring for him sometimes.
The oath or swearing is more detailed in the books and causes Gollum to die because Gollum breaks the oath. Swear by the ring. Instead of Swear on the Ring. This dialogue carries more meaning than the condensed version of the film.
I like how you clarified Gollum’s actions between the book and the film. I was a kid when the films came out (had not yet read the books), and I never understood why Frodo seems to immediately pity Gollum after the latter just tried to kill them. Then once I read the book, it made a lot more sense to me. Frodo pities him exactly the same way that Bilbo did, because he saw that Gollum was essentially a slave. He spoke “ill words” because of the Ring, but never actually attacked them. Therefore, Gollum is a slave to its will. The films portray Gollum as a creature simply biding his time to kill the hobbits until the opportune moment which frustrates the audience wondering why Frodo seems willfully blind to the whole thing. As we find out in the Cracks of Doom, Tolkien shows that Frodo would have ultimately failed in his quest if not for Gollum, thereby making Gollum a most essential antagonist to the quest. Sort of a “necessary villain”. Great video essay, sir. 👍
The reason he pities him in the movie is based around a fundamentally egotistical desire, not around genuine empathy. He basically has to tell himself that Gollum can actually be saved. Because if someone as miserable and deplorable as Gollum can recover from the ring's corruption, then it's pretty much settled that someone like Frodo can as well. At least that's what the movie seems to communicate.
@@Malachit-dl1qwto me empathy and egoism are kind of parallels so I feel you couid read it as both (in the movie) but it starts to become more dully portrayed compared to the book as things progress.
I found this playlist yesterday and decided to watch it. I've never really looked for something like this before but I do enjoy the analysis between book and movies and making a side by side comparison between both, especially in a viewpoint that doesn't favor one over the other. Both versions are great for their own reasons and with thoughts why changes had been made. It's understandable that some things have to be cut from a movie adaptation and things are switched up (or things being shown around the time they probably happen instead of having these being told by dialogue much later) Some things being different make more sense than others (and some making no real sense at all). But it makes me appreciate both versions even more. I am looking forward to the next video, and I'm definitely gonna be along the ride for the whole series until the very end! Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos!
That’s awesome! Thanks for watching. 🙏🏼 Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is my favorite movie trilogy of all time (yes above Star Wars). But I also am a book nerd when it comes to Tolkien! It’s so fun every week to compare the two!
Sam not being hungry for Lembas is moved to The Return of the King (technically still in Two Towers story according to book since the second half after leaving Faramir, including the journey to the crossroads, the stairs of Cirith Ungol, the encounter with Shelob, including Frodo being paralyzed and Sam thinks he is dead and the orcs from Cirith Ungol takes the comatose Frodo to the tower) when Frodo asks him about his part of the elvish bread.
@factorfantasyweekly I'm very impressed at how quickly this series is progressing - I thought it would take you a couple of years to get through all 3 films. 👍
About moving dialogue to the morning after, there's probably a few things going on there. One, scene breaks help pacing. A lot of a film's momentum comes down to how quickly we go from one scene to another. So ironically, you can make a long sequence feel fast-paced by spreading it out more. They also probably wanted to cut down on characters sitting around. Movies famously love having people walk and talk at the same time (mostly for pacing and visual interest). But it's especially important here because they're trying to show just how long and arduous the journey is. Therefore, take stuff that's supposed to happen at a campsite and put it on the road instead. The scenes don't even need to have that much walking, just the implication that that's what they're supposed to be doing right now. The audience takes care of the rest.
If you want to be very pro-Gollum, you can actually interpret even the movie scene as Gollum never attacking Frodo and Sam. He doesn't have time. Sure he reaches out, but it's Frodo and Sam who grab the arm in the movie and pull him down. The fact that Gollum then (in self-defense) is quite violent fits both with common sense, and with what he does in the book. So, in my opinion, Gollum is quite innocent even in the movie. But of course I have bent the truth a little to claim that.
I recall Peter Jackson (or perhaps one of the writers) stating in an extras video that the box Sam had was meant to represent Galadriel’s gift in the book, but was altered since they were not doing the Scouring of the Shire and the tree. They wanted to capture the sentiment, though.
Tolkien wrote as their primary concern that Gollum might inadvertently lead the orcs to them. His desire for the Ring overrides all caution beyond avoiding capture himself. This was why Frodo and Sam jumped Gollum. Movies can’t really convey that visually, so Peter Jackson decided to have Gollum present a physical threat that prompted the hobbits to capture him.
The part where Frodo holds Sting against Gollum's head is from the book and Alan Lee made a paiting of this moment, which inspired for the moment in the movie.
The struggle through the rocky terrain (book) was always tedious to me, but I took it as part of the cost, making me feel how difficult that part of the journey was.
Tolkien also writes in arduous sense when Frodo and Sam make their final crawl in the plains of Gorgoroth. He articulated well the great strain of their hunger, thirst, weariness, and utter despair. As a matter of fact, he wrote that though they lost all taste for lembas, it gave them a strength of will that they otherwise would never have had with normal food.
The box of salt is mentioned in the book version of Fellowship. At one point the stuff Sam has with him is described and he has a box of seasoning. So Sam does have it. But there’s not an exchange like we have here between the two. And certainly not in Two Towers.
I think they moved the conversation with Gollum to the next day, because they didn't want the movie to be that dark - it would have brought too much gloom after 10 minutes of the film (there's enough of that at Helm's deep). Just like they didn't have the fellowship travel by night from Rivendell and Lothlorien.
"...instead, we're starting from chapter 12..." See, it's just this kind of 'jumpiness,' that made us believe, back in the early-to-mid 90s, that Lord of the Rings could never be filmed. We'd gather around the water-cooler at work, or the sinks in the toilets and talk about how WE would solve this issue, or that one, so that we could bring the tale to life on film... Two years before P.J. ever announced that he was going to try to start filming (we wished him all the very best, though no one really thought he could really do it), I started seeing this girl. It wasn't until our second morning together, that I noticed a beautifully crafted silver ring she wore. Elegantly engraved on that ring was some writing, in Feanorian Tengwar. It was only two lines of a verse long-known in Elven lore: _One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them._ _One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!_ Bear in mind that this was YEARS before anyone knew that a movie was going to be made one day. Finding that she was wearing such a ring, well... it entirely changed the nature of our relationship!! It went from a two-night-stand (she was far too sexy to only have a one-night-stand with!) to the two of us actually going out on a date! Outside my room, I mean!!! I took her to a science museum, after I'd finished work in the morning. Then we went back to my place "for coffee." When we got there- get this- I even asked her, I actually asked her "Can I make you a coffee?" She kept staring at me, as though she wanted to eat me, though, so I never managed to finish making it. Some 30 years later and that coffee still remains unmade, to this day! Somewhere in a St. Lucia kitchen, in Brisbane, there's a coffee, waiting to be born...
The Nazgûl isn’t scouting. It has been sent to bring Grishnak back from the raid on the fellowship. Gollum thinks that the Nazgûl are looking for them and the ring when they see one crossing for the 3rd time but we know or should know that this isn’t true as the Nazgûl are responding to events in book 1 that we already know about. This is an important change to the way the reader/viewer interprets events as the level of knowledge we have is different in both because of the way Tolkien structures the story. In fact book IV takes Frodo and Sam well into the period of time of book V for the other characters. When book IV ends the siege of Minas Tirith is already underway.
There's definitely a subtlety to the book that is lost in adaptation here. Gollum absolutely intended murder. Later his self-monologue makes it clear: He's a murderer, and he's done it more than once. He hates what he has done, who he is, and what he's become. He's like a junkie but without the temporary retreat from the stark reality that the stuff might give him. A miserable creature living a miserable existence for all that time. It was easy enough for Frodo to find pity for him as by this time he was already starting to know the pull of the ring. That's a little more out of left field in the film. Usually it seems I'm critical of the film in my own remarks-I do love the films, actually. I think it is the case that no adaptation can perfectly capture the original, so it seems like there's a lot of criticism. It's fairly mild criticism because there's a lot to love about the LotR trilogy. The Hobbit trilogy OTOH … that needs a pretty heavy re-edit to not be pretty awful. (It's gotten it mind you, but it was necessary.)
For me the most important change Peter Jackson made to "The Taming of Smeagol" is removing the line of dialogue where Frodo says that Gollum may not swear *on* the ring but he may swear *by* it. This line makes it much clearer that Frodo sees the risks that the One Ring carries, and understands Gollum's burden as only someone who has carried the ring can. Without this insight, Frodo seems much more gullible. I realize this is probably for a later video, but it makes Frodo seem much weaker that he's so trusting of Gollum's good intentions and so willing to question Sam's. In the book, it's actually Sam who reflects that he'd mistaken Frodo's gentleness for weakness, and he's sorry that he underestimated his master in this way.
That Frodo sees Sauron's eye here, I would like to interpret in two ways. Partly it is an effective way for the film to connect Frodo with the goal of the journey, partly it is inspired both by Ralph Bakshi's film and by some lines in the book. In the book it says: "Every now and again a tiny red gleam far away flickered upwards on the rim of earth and sky. `What a fix! ' said Sam. `That's the one place in all the lands we've ever heard of that we don't want to see any closer; and that's the one place we're trying to get to! And that's just where we can't get, nohow...'" This scene is used by Bakshi in his film. And since Jackson has generally been inspired by Bakshi's film, I believe that Bakshi's transfer of the text to his film, has made Jackson take advantage of the opportunity to further develop the scene as it was in his film, with the eye.
The Hunt for Gollum could be a good horror flick where they show him before anyone took pity on him... But it's probably gonna be a three hour pity party for someone who was still a monster at the time.
"For years I've eaten nothing but manna -- A dish that is filling, but bland." ruclips.net/video/xyL7H6zQ_PQ/видео.html In fact, manna tasted like honey, just like lembas (Exodus 16:31), yet the Israelites also tired of it (Numbers 11:4-6). Tolkien knew this, of course, and he also knew stories of saints surviving for years on nothing but the Eucharist, which was prefigured by manna.
In the book, Gollum breaking his oath to Frodo is what makes him tumble into the fire of Mount Doom. Frodo even uses the ring two more times, after the black gate and at Mount Doom, to protect himself from being betrayed by Gollum, leading to the ring eventually destroying itself. But I'm getting ahead of ourselves :).
Two more times? I only think of the time at the cracks of doom. Unless, of course by "using" The ring you mean "referencing it" but not actually putting it on.
@@dandiehm8414Indeed I didn't mean putting it on, but binding Gollum to his oath, similar to what's said in the video. Sam each time gets visions of Frodo growing in stature and towering above Gollum
To me, a primary difference is with how Jackson handles Gollum's duality. In the movies, the "evil" Gollum is basically imposed onto him as if from an outside force; in the books, it's an extension of his own internal corruption. In fact, I'd say this is a fundamental issue with how the movies interpret the Ring in general. Jackson's retelling strikes me as much more surface-level and obvious.
As far as the film version goes, it was fine to condense and/or move things around a bit and add a little more action to this scene, as it would really have dragged down the story if they had followed the book more closely -- this chapter is a little on the dull side until Gollum shows up. There *is* a mention in FotR of Sam's cherished box of salt when they are leaving Rivendell and I thought it was cute and touching to include it in this scene.
I think a lot of people see the high octane action points from the movies and want to immediately get to them when they read the books. In reality, there are some real treasured moments in the books that are overlooked in the movies. Moments that require you to refrain your mind away from the movies and just feel your way through the books.
The books immerse you in the world in a way the movies can't. They are slow compared to modern fantasy, though. Tolkien lovingly describes his world and takes his time doing it.
I think most of Jackson's changes were OK, but the bits about the rope and the box of soil should have followed the book (why not?), and both times Frodo uses the Ring to bind Gollum to his fate should have been shown. I think it is an important point that evil is self-destroying, and the Ring ended up betraying Sauron and contributing to its own destruction. In fact, I'd say the very words were given to Frodo either by the Ring or by Iluvatar.
I’m always a fan of the a movie over a film adaptation but I realize that certain things have to be adapted or rather changed to make a movie flow. Having said that if I look at a movie as simply a slightly altered version of the same story then I don’t have a conflict and can nearly equally enjoy both versions. Similarly if someone writes a book based on a movie the book has the ability to include more depth but again it is simply a different version of the same story.
I just realize something your hobbit animated character looks like the exact same graphics as the video game creatures for the computer and PlayStation one
You should defininetly talk about how Peter Jacksons Movies didnt talk about anything happening with the hobbits directly after wanting to return back to the shire.
What woke Sauron up? Was he just biding his time gathering enough strength? Was the timing of Bilbo taking ownership of the ring just a coincidence? Did he wake up all the way back when Smeagle took it out of the riverbed and it just took him this long to gain enough power?
your question is answered by Gandalf, when he tells about his findings in Dol Guldur. There he finds Thrain,Thorins father, half mad and nearly dead. But he also finds affirmation of something he long suspected: that "the Necromancer" who dwelled there was nobody else but Sauron, gaining power. He then gathered the White Council to attack Dol Guldur, but Sauron only fled to Mordor. From this, you can get that Sauron must have "woken up" much earlier than Bilbo finding the Ring, since the Necromancer was mostly responsible for Mirkwood becoming an evil place. When exactly he came there is not told in any source i know of. The only real information is very vague: Sauron spent "a thousand years" shapeless. There is also one Timestamp: 1050 DZ Dol Guldur, was build, and 1100 the white council found an evil power (Sauron) there, which is roughly 2 thousand years before the events of The Hobbit (which start 2941)
I like the book better, but Tolkien's gifts hearkend back unto the days of yore when great deeds were spoken and sung, and only later written, which is not as easily a fit for the stage or screen as Charles Dickens or Bram Stoker. For this reason, scenes that create tension in the novel may not be so in film. This scene does not disturb me over much in the overarching narrative of the movie, because it still keeps to the general theme of the piece without being bogged down.
Honestly, I probably prefer the movie version. It took me three attempts to get through Two Towers. First half, awesome, but second half loses steam and gets a bit boring. Jackson knew there had to be more tension in what is essentially a long narrative of two hobbits walking a lot and not saying anything of much significance for the most part.
Well done! 🙂 Ultimately, anyone who is both familiar with the books and also appreciates the art of filmmaking (and PJ + NLC) could easily comprehend why X happened but not Y, why Z was cut, reworked, or modified. As a side note, it's just my opinion, but I think Peter, Fran, and the overall team did a better job representing Tolkien's work than even TOLKIEN could have, if he were magically alive in 1999, etc. 🙂 Besides, nearly every other adaptation (and there were *MANY*) paled by comparison.
10:54 I don’t see Sam’s line delivery in the movie saying that he thinks it’s not so bad as him actually liking the elven bread, but trying to stay positive.
Gollum, Smeagol, was supposed to be an ancient creature, as gandalf said, probably a Stoor, and he was very old. Jacksons version has him a s a monster yes, but not old and stringy, and the eys look too young. Still, Gollum was the least of Jacksons mistakes and althoughmany people slag off the zRings of Power for not adhereing to the Tolkein lore, neither did Jacksons. I am always puzzled why people make out that LOTR was a masterpiece, and some of it was, but not the screenplay that's for sure!
The Lord of the Rings films are a masterpiece. The reality with books is that it's all up to the imagination and effort of the reader. When it comes to making a film (especially an adaption) you need to create a narrative that plays out naturally while maintaining a decent pace that audience members can keep up with and remain invested in. Jackson's trilogy is a masterpiece in filmmaking, story telling, world building and character development while being accessible for people of all ages to enjoy. Everything that happens in the films serves a purpose and is the perfect balance of art and entertainment.
Tying a rope around Gollum's ankle does not free up his habds and feet. For illustrative purposes, having the rope around his neck is better. Wheg reading the books i though the tird ankle and the rope being dragged along the rocky ground was a bad idea as in reality it woyld catch abd get tangled. Tolkien didnt define why he chose that way.
I think one reason for the changes to Gollum's actions is to visually represent how Gollum's addiction to the ring has destroyed him and what it means for Frodo's future. I think Jackson modeled the Ring after drug addiction giving the audience something they could relate to. The adding of the attack makes Sam insisting on the rope less harsh because Gollum has done ill deeds; in the books Sam is very black and white in his judgement of Gollum where Frodo shows wisdom and pity; the Taming of Gollum reflects their characters. Sam likes things to be simple, for example the Lembas bread, Sam desires the simple bread of the shire not the Lembas because now matter how good it taste, it is to fancy and rich for a simple hobbit like himself. I do wish the movie showed the oath properly; that, gives the reader another clue that there is more at work than just luck. As for the moving around the timing of things was probably a mix of pacing, filming conditions, and giving the watcher a sense time advance without having to much nontalking wideshots.
It would easier and simpler to note what Jackson got right in his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Let's see here... wait a tick... um.... oh. I know. Jackson got the names of the characters right. And... that's about it.
@jachyra9 I really wish that they used the spooky Gollum design where he climbs inside the cave, in the third film, because it fits the description of the books very well; he’s extremely old and tired! And he’s actually wearing almost full on dark clothing in that movie scene, too! But Tolkien describes him having long dark hair to his neck. Also I think that Leo Woodall, for example, would be much better as Sam because he has an English accent, knows how to cry, and has other fantastic acting experience in general!
@@bogjesrbin484 - Jackson managed to screw up one of the most beloved stories of all time, and basically ripped off the Bakshi adaptation. The Hobbit films showed Jackson’s true colours. Total arse gravy. Lord of the Rings in name only.
@@daviddawson6150 Thank God Peter Jackson was the director of the lord of the rings. His adaptation is brilliant, I rewatch the trilogy once a year and it never gets boring
No-one expects the movies to copy the books scene-by-scene. It is, however, fair game to compare a book and its adaptation and see what was changed, how and why, and if those changes contribute to the story or detract.
To be fair, some of the changes made were unnecessary. No one is saying the movies had to follow the book word for word 100%, but the movies could have been better if they followed the book more.
Want to go through this series with me? 👀 Read along with me! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Two Towers” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/twotowers 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Hey, if you ever need any V.O. work, send me an email. No joke. 🙂 I've also been developing my own hero's journey series over the past six years or so, four books of which are already published.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
These videos strike a good balance between celebrating Jackson's cinematic accomplishments while also reminding us about how much richer and subtler the source material is. Thank you for the hard work!
Well said!
Thanks for watching!
"emerging composer" is like the asian soundclound rapper
Couldn't agree more!
The box of salt is not in the book at this time. But it's actually featured further on, when Sam makes stew on rabbits that Gollum catches. The text reads as follows:
"He still hopefully carried some of his gear in his pack: a small tinder-box, two small shallow pans, the smaller fitting into the larger; inside them a wooden spoon, a short two-pronged fork and some skewers were stowed; and hidden at the bottom of the pack in a flat wooden box a dwindling treasure, some salt."
The box of salt is also mentioned in chapter 3 of _The Fellowship of the Ring,_ 'The Ring Goes South:'
---------------
Sam eased the pack on his shoulders, and went over anxiously in his mind all the things that he had stowed in it, wondering if he had forgotten anything: his chief treasure, his cooking gear; and the little box of salt that he always carried and refilled when he could;
----------------
While Gollum doesn't exactly "attack" them he does cause Sam harm by biting his shoulder when he's holding him down.
Another thing I noticed after reading the books for the first time is Sam is much gentler to Gollum in this scene than he is in the movie. When Frodo inspects the rope on Gollum's ankle he finds that it is "hardly tight enough", that Sam was "gentler than his words".
Thank you for making these great videos!
I was always under the impression Frodo temporarily lost his sight because of the presence of the unseen Nazgûl influencing his Morgul-blade wound. When Frodo was almost overcome by the injury at the Ford, the only person he could clearly see on the opposite bank was Glorfindel; likewise, Frodo could see the Elven rope when all else around him seemed dark.
* * * *
‘It’s good to be able to see again,’ said Frodo, breathing deep. ‘Do you know, I thought for a bit that I had lost my sight? From the lightning or something else worse. I could see nothing, nothing at all, until the grey rope came down. It seemed to shimmer somehow.’
- _The Taming of Sméagol_
I think Frodo was being pulled more and more into the spirit world. Frodo saw Glorfindel because he is mighty in both realms. He saw the rope because it was made by Elves and had a presence in the spirit world.
Then my memory was right! Thanks for looking up that paragraph.
Really important clarification: Frodo and Sam were NEVER as gullible towards Gollum’s treacherous nature in the books as they were in the films. They KNEW that Gollum would try to betray them at some point but were cautiously optimistic about his change in behavior.
They also never quarreled over trusting Gollum in the books, as they were constantly doing in the films. The only quarrels between them in the books were Frodo reacting angrily to Sam offering to ease his master's burden by carrying the Ring for him sometimes.
The oath or swearing is more detailed in the books and causes Gollum to die because Gollum breaks the oath.
Swear by the ring. Instead of Swear on the Ring. This dialogue carries more meaning than the condensed version of the film.
And that changes the moral of the story. Evil will destroy itself. Until them you have to endure it and resist its temptation.
I like how you clarified Gollum’s actions between the book and the film. I was a kid when the films came out (had not yet read the books), and I never understood why Frodo seems to immediately pity Gollum after the latter just tried to kill them.
Then once I read the book, it made a lot more sense to me. Frodo pities him exactly the same way that Bilbo did, because he saw that Gollum was essentially a slave. He spoke “ill words” because of the Ring, but never actually attacked them. Therefore, Gollum is a slave to its will.
The films portray Gollum as a creature simply biding his time to kill the hobbits until the opportune moment which frustrates the audience wondering why Frodo seems willfully blind to the whole thing. As we find out in the Cracks of Doom, Tolkien shows that Frodo would have ultimately failed in his quest if not for Gollum, thereby making Gollum a most essential antagonist to the quest. Sort of a “necessary villain”.
Great video essay, sir. 👍
Very nicely put!
The reason he pities him in the movie is based around a fundamentally egotistical desire, not around genuine empathy. He basically has to tell himself that Gollum can actually be saved. Because if someone as miserable and deplorable as Gollum can recover from the ring's corruption, then it's pretty much settled that someone like Frodo can as well. At least that's what the movie seems to communicate.
@@Malachit-dl1qwto me empathy and egoism are kind of parallels so I feel you couid read it as both (in the movie) but it starts to become more dully portrayed compared to the book as things progress.
I found this playlist yesterday and decided to watch it. I've never really looked for something like this before but I do enjoy the analysis between book and movies and making a side by side comparison between both, especially in a viewpoint that doesn't favor one over the other. Both versions are great for their own reasons and with thoughts why changes had been made.
It's understandable that some things have to be cut from a movie adaptation and things are switched up (or things being shown around the time they probably happen instead of having these being told by dialogue much later)
Some things being different make more sense than others (and some making no real sense at all).
But it makes me appreciate both versions even more.
I am looking forward to the next video, and I'm definitely gonna be along the ride for the whole series until the very end!
Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos!
That’s awesome! Thanks for watching. 🙏🏼
Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is my favorite movie trilogy of all time (yes above Star Wars). But I also am a book nerd when it comes to Tolkien! It’s so fun every week to compare the two!
Making me want to rewatch LOTR trilogy but I rewatched it like 2 weeks ago
Sam not being hungry for Lembas is moved to The Return of the King (technically still in Two Towers story according to book since the second half after leaving Faramir, including the journey to the crossroads, the stairs of Cirith Ungol, the encounter with Shelob, including Frodo being paralyzed and Sam thinks he is dead and the orcs from Cirith Ungol takes the comatose Frodo to the tower) when Frodo asks him about his part of the elvish bread.
@factorfantasyweekly I'm very impressed at how quickly this series is progressing - I thought it would take you a couple of years to get through all 3 films. 👍
About moving dialogue to the morning after, there's probably a few things going on there. One, scene breaks help pacing. A lot of a film's momentum comes down to how quickly we go from one scene to another. So ironically, you can make a long sequence feel fast-paced by spreading it out more.
They also probably wanted to cut down on characters sitting around. Movies famously love having people walk and talk at the same time (mostly for pacing and visual interest). But it's especially important here because they're trying to show just how long and arduous the journey is. Therefore, take stuff that's supposed to happen at a campsite and put it on the road instead. The scenes don't even need to have that much walking, just the implication that that's what they're supposed to be doing right now. The audience takes care of the rest.
If you want to be very pro-Gollum, you can actually interpret even the movie scene as Gollum never attacking Frodo and Sam. He doesn't have time. Sure he reaches out, but it's Frodo and Sam who grab the arm in the movie and pull him down. The fact that Gollum then (in self-defense) is quite violent fits both with common sense, and with what he does in the book.
So, in my opinion, Gollum is quite innocent even in the movie. But of course I have bent the truth a little to claim that.
I just found the Chanel in recent days. Great content. We appreciate it kind sir.
Hello, I'm new to your channel; great job! I personally feel that PJ and Andy Serkis both did a phenomenal job depicting Gollum.
Welcome! I agree. Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Gollum is up there with the greatest ever. 🙏🏼
I recall Peter Jackson (or perhaps one of the writers) stating in an extras video that the box Sam had was meant to represent Galadriel’s gift in the book, but was altered since they were not doing the Scouring of the Shire and the tree. They wanted to capture the sentiment, though.
Tolkien wrote as their primary concern that Gollum might inadvertently lead the orcs to them. His desire for the Ring overrides all caution beyond avoiding capture himself. This was why Frodo and Sam jumped Gollum. Movies can’t really convey that visually, so Peter Jackson decided to have Gollum present a physical threat that prompted the hobbits to capture him.
The part where Frodo holds Sting against Gollum's head is from the book and Alan Lee made a paiting of this moment, which inspired for the moment in the movie.
The struggle through the rocky terrain (book) was always tedious to me, but I took it as part of the cost, making me feel how difficult that part of the journey was.
Tolkien also writes in arduous sense when Frodo and Sam make their final crawl in the plains of Gorgoroth. He articulated well the great strain of their hunger, thirst, weariness, and utter despair. As a matter of fact, he wrote that though they lost all taste for lembas, it gave them a strength of will that they otherwise would never have had with normal food.
Thanks for the upload! As a person who never read the books this series is a true treasure! Thanks for the effort you put into these videos!
The box of salt is mentioned in the book version of Fellowship. At one point the stuff Sam has with him is described and he has a box of seasoning. So Sam does have it. But there’s not an exchange like we have here between the two. And certainly not in Two Towers.
I really enjoy these LOTR videos!
I think they moved the conversation with Gollum to the next day, because they didn't want the movie to be that dark - it would have brought too much gloom after 10 minutes of the film (there's enough of that at Helm's deep).
Just like they didn't have the fellowship travel by night from Rivendell and Lothlorien.
"...instead, we're starting from chapter 12..."
See, it's just this kind of 'jumpiness,' that made us believe, back in the early-to-mid 90s, that Lord of the Rings could never be filmed.
We'd gather around the water-cooler at work, or the sinks in the toilets and talk about how WE would solve this issue, or that one, so that we could bring the tale to life on film... Two years before P.J. ever announced that he was going to try to start filming (we wished him all the very best, though no one really thought he could really do it), I started seeing this girl. It wasn't until our second morning together, that I noticed a beautifully crafted silver ring she wore. Elegantly engraved on that ring was some writing, in Feanorian Tengwar. It was only two lines of a verse long-known in Elven lore:
_One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them._
_One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!_
Bear in mind that this was YEARS before anyone knew that a movie was going to be made one day. Finding that she was wearing such a ring, well... it entirely changed the nature of our relationship!! It went from a two-night-stand (she was far too sexy to only have a one-night-stand with!) to the two of us actually going out on a date! Outside my room, I mean!!! I took her to a science museum, after I'd finished work in the morning. Then we went back to my place "for coffee." When we got there- get this- I even asked her, I actually asked her "Can I make you a coffee?" She kept staring at me, as though she wanted to eat me, though, so I never managed to finish making it. Some 30 years later and that coffee still remains unmade, to this day! Somewhere in a St. Lucia kitchen, in Brisbane, there's a coffee, waiting to be born...
The Nazgûl isn’t scouting. It has been sent to bring Grishnak back from the raid on the fellowship. Gollum thinks that the Nazgûl are looking for them and the ring when they see one crossing for the 3rd time but we know or should know that this isn’t true as the Nazgûl are responding to events in book 1 that we already know about. This is an important change to the way the reader/viewer interprets events as the level of knowledge we have is different in both because of the way Tolkien structures the story. In fact book IV takes Frodo and Sam well into the period of time of book V for the other characters. When book IV ends the siege of Minas Tirith is already underway.
I'm fairly certain that Frodo meant that the mist and rain and darkness limit his vision.
The movies are great, but I'll always be a books man!
There's definitely a subtlety to the book that is lost in adaptation here. Gollum absolutely intended murder. Later his self-monologue makes it clear: He's a murderer, and he's done it more than once. He hates what he has done, who he is, and what he's become. He's like a junkie but without the temporary retreat from the stark reality that the stuff might give him. A miserable creature living a miserable existence for all that time. It was easy enough for Frodo to find pity for him as by this time he was already starting to know the pull of the ring. That's a little more out of left field in the film.
Usually it seems I'm critical of the film in my own remarks-I do love the films, actually. I think it is the case that no adaptation can perfectly capture the original, so it seems like there's a lot of criticism. It's fairly mild criticism because there's a lot to love about the LotR trilogy. The Hobbit trilogy OTOH … that needs a pretty heavy re-edit to not be pretty awful. (It's gotten it mind you, but it was necessary.)
I'm gonna love you covering Frodo and Gollum compared to the books, and I'm not simply reffering to the lembas bread.
They definitely make Frodo and Sam look harsher in the movies.
Considering the size of the hobbits, it would be more accurate to call it elven string then elven rope.
For me the most important change Peter Jackson made to "The Taming of Smeagol" is removing the line of dialogue where Frodo says that Gollum may not swear *on* the ring but he may swear *by* it. This line makes it much clearer that Frodo sees the risks that the One Ring carries, and understands Gollum's burden as only someone who has carried the ring can. Without this insight, Frodo seems much more gullible. I realize this is probably for a later video, but it makes Frodo seem much weaker that he's so trusting of Gollum's good intentions and so willing to question Sam's. In the book, it's actually Sam who reflects that he'd mistaken Frodo's gentleness for weakness, and he's sorry that he underestimated his master in this way.
That Frodo sees Sauron's eye here, I would like to interpret in two ways. Partly it is an effective way for the film to connect Frodo with the goal of the journey, partly it is inspired both by Ralph Bakshi's film and by some lines in the book.
In the book it says:
"Every now and again a tiny red gleam far away flickered upwards on the rim of earth and sky.
`What a fix! ' said Sam. `That's the one place in all the lands we've ever heard of that we don't want to see any closer; and that's the one place we're trying to get to! And that's just where we can't get, nohow...'"
This scene is used by Bakshi in his film. And since Jackson has generally been inspired by Bakshi's film, I believe that Bakshi's transfer of the text to his film, has made Jackson take advantage of the opportunity to further develop the scene as it was in his film, with the eye.
The Hunt for Gollum could be a good horror flick where they show him before anyone took pity on him...
But it's probably gonna be a three hour pity party for someone who was still a monster at the time.
"For years I've eaten nothing but manna --
A dish that is filling, but bland."
ruclips.net/video/xyL7H6zQ_PQ/видео.html
In fact, manna tasted like honey, just like lembas (Exodus 16:31), yet the Israelites also tired of it (Numbers 11:4-6). Tolkien knew this, of course, and he also knew stories of saints surviving for years on nothing but the Eucharist, which was prefigured by manna.
I cant wait for next episodes with Aragorn Legolas and Gimli encounter Rohirrim
I wonder if Gollum reaching the ring was just to touch it or if he intended to use it's invisibility to get the upperhand.
In the book, Gollum breaking his oath to Frodo is what makes him tumble into the fire of Mount Doom. Frodo even uses the ring two more times, after the black gate and at Mount Doom, to protect himself from being betrayed by Gollum, leading to the ring eventually destroying itself. But I'm getting ahead of ourselves :).
Two more times? I only think of the time at the cracks of doom. Unless, of course by "using" The ring you mean "referencing it" but not actually putting it on.
@@dandiehm8414Indeed I didn't mean putting it on, but binding Gollum to his oath, similar to what's said in the video. Sam each time gets visions of Frodo growing in stature and towering above Gollum
I find it ridiculous how often the Ring pops into view in the movies.
To me, a primary difference is with how Jackson handles Gollum's duality. In the movies, the "evil" Gollum is basically imposed onto him as if from an outside force; in the books, it's an extension of his own internal corruption. In fact, I'd say this is a fundamental issue with how the movies interpret the Ring in general. Jackson's retelling strikes me as much more surface-level and obvious.
As far as the film version goes, it was fine to condense and/or move things around a bit and add a little more action to this scene, as it would really have dragged down the story if they had followed the book more closely -- this chapter is a little on the dull side until Gollum shows up. There *is* a mention in FotR of Sam's cherished box of salt when they are leaving Rivendell and I thought it was cute and touching to include it in this scene.
I only got Rivendel reading the books. These videos make me consider picking it up again. it's was so slow reading it first time through.
I think a lot of people see the high octane action points from the movies and want to immediately get to them when they read the books. In reality, there are some real treasured moments in the books that are overlooked in the movies. Moments that require you to refrain your mind away from the movies and just feel your way through the books.
The books immerse you in the world in a way the movies can't. They are slow compared to modern fantasy, though. Tolkien lovingly describes his world and takes his time doing it.
I think most of Jackson's changes were OK, but the bits about the rope and the box of soil should have followed the book (why not?), and both times Frodo uses the Ring to bind Gollum to his fate should have been shown. I think it is an important point that evil is self-destroying, and the Ring ended up betraying Sauron and contributing to its own destruction. In fact, I'd say the very words were given to Frodo either by the Ring or by Iluvatar.
I’m always a fan of the a movie over a film adaptation but I realize that certain things have to be adapted or rather changed to make a movie flow. Having said that if I look at a movie as simply a slightly altered version of the same story then I don’t have a conflict and can nearly equally enjoy both versions. Similarly if someone writes a book based on a movie the book has the ability to include more depth but again it is simply a different version of the same story.
I just realize something your hobbit animated character looks like the exact same graphics as the video game creatures for the computer and PlayStation one
Yep! I intentionally made it pixel art 👀
Great series, though I wish the lines were delivered at OR the playback could be set to 0.9x speed
You should defininetly talk about how Peter Jacksons Movies didnt talk about anything happening with the hobbits directly after wanting to return back to the shire.
Great video!
What woke Sauron up? Was he just biding his time gathering enough strength? Was the timing of Bilbo taking ownership of the ring just a coincidence? Did he wake up all the way back when Smeagle took it out of the riverbed and it just took him this long to gain enough power?
your question is answered by Gandalf, when he tells about his findings in Dol Guldur. There he finds Thrain,Thorins father, half mad and nearly dead. But he also finds affirmation of something he long suspected: that "the Necromancer" who dwelled there was nobody else but Sauron, gaining power. He then gathered the White Council to attack Dol Guldur, but Sauron only fled to Mordor.
From this, you can get that Sauron must have "woken up" much earlier than Bilbo finding the Ring, since the Necromancer was mostly responsible for Mirkwood becoming an evil place. When exactly he came there is not told in any source i know of. The only real information is very vague: Sauron spent "a thousand years" shapeless.
There is also one Timestamp: 1050 DZ Dol Guldur, was build, and 1100 the white council found an evil power (Sauron) there, which is roughly 2 thousand years before the events of The Hobbit (which start 2941)
It is hinted in part 1 that Sauron gathered strength first, and the ring left Gollum because he 'heard his master's call'.
We should always remember, whether book or movie, it was Gollum that saved Middle Earth. Not that he meant to, LOL.
I like the book better, but Tolkien's gifts hearkend back unto the days of yore when great deeds were spoken and sung, and only later written, which is not as easily a fit for the stage or screen as Charles Dickens or Bram Stoker. For this reason, scenes that create tension in the novel may not be so in film. This scene does not disturb me over much in the overarching narrative of the movie, because it still keeps to the general theme of the piece without being bogged down.
Honestly, I probably prefer the movie version. It took me three attempts to get through Two Towers. First half, awesome, but second half loses steam and gets a bit boring. Jackson knew there had to be more tension in what is essentially a long narrative of two hobbits walking a lot and not saying anything of much significance for the most part.
Well done! 🙂 Ultimately, anyone who is both familiar with the books and also appreciates the art of filmmaking (and PJ + NLC) could easily comprehend why X happened but not Y, why Z was cut, reworked, or modified.
As a side note, it's just my opinion, but I think Peter, Fran, and the overall team did a better job representing Tolkien's work than even TOLKIEN could have, if he were magically alive in 1999, etc. 🙂 Besides, nearly every other adaptation (and there were *MANY*) paled by comparison.
"This flash back is just a dream" Was it?
This originally happen in the bashky animated movie and Peter Jackson borrowed a lot from that movie
I like all the adaptations the rankin and bass the weird rotoscope one and Jackson but I will always stand by the books are being the superior
10:54 I don’t see Sam’s line delivery in the movie saying that he thinks it’s not so bad as him actually liking the elven bread, but trying to stay positive.
Gollum, Smeagol, was supposed to be an ancient creature, as gandalf said, probably a Stoor, and he was very old. Jacksons version has him a s a monster yes, but not old and stringy, and the eys look too young. Still, Gollum was the least of Jacksons mistakes and althoughmany people slag off the zRings of Power for not adhereing to the Tolkein lore, neither did Jacksons. I am always puzzled why people make out that LOTR was a masterpiece, and some of it was, but not the screenplay that's for sure!
The Lord of the Rings films are a masterpiece. The reality with books is that it's all up to the imagination and effort of the reader. When it comes to making a film (especially an adaption) you need to create a narrative that plays out naturally while maintaining a decent pace that audience members can keep up with and remain invested in. Jackson's trilogy is a masterpiece in filmmaking, story telling, world building and character development while being accessible for people of all ages to enjoy. Everything that happens in the films serves a purpose and is the perfect balance of art and entertainment.
Tying a rope around Gollum's ankle does not free up his habds and feet. For illustrative purposes, having the rope around his neck is better. Wheg reading the books i though the tird ankle and the rope being dragged along the rocky ground was a bad idea as in reality it woyld catch abd get tangled. Tolkien didnt define why he chose that way.
Lets not forget Gollyn was leading then into a trap all along . I never felt sorry for him reading the book
I think one reason for the changes to Gollum's actions is to visually represent how Gollum's addiction to the ring has destroyed him and what it means for Frodo's future. I think Jackson modeled the Ring after drug addiction giving the audience something they could relate to. The adding of the attack makes Sam insisting on the rope less harsh because Gollum has done ill deeds; in the books Sam is very black and white in his judgement of Gollum where Frodo shows wisdom and pity; the Taming of Gollum reflects their characters. Sam likes things to be simple, for example the Lembas bread, Sam desires the simple bread of the shire not the Lembas because now matter how good it taste, it is to fancy and rich for a simple hobbit like himself. I do wish the movie showed the oath properly; that, gives the reader another clue that there is more at work than just luck. As for the moving around the timing of things was probably a mix of pacing, filming conditions, and giving the watcher a sense time advance without having to much nontalking wideshots.
Yeah? So?
2:11 Samuel? :o
It would easier and simpler to note what Jackson got right in his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Let's see here... wait a tick... um.... oh. I know. Jackson got the names of the characters right. And... that's about it.
@jachyra9 I really wish that they used the spooky Gollum design where he climbs inside the cave, in the third film, because it fits the description of the books very well; he’s extremely old and tired! And he’s actually wearing almost full on dark clothing in that movie scene, too! But Tolkien describes him having long dark hair to his neck.
Also I think that Leo Woodall, for example, would be much better as Sam because he has an English accent, knows how to cry, and has other fantastic acting experience in general!
I read all the books 43 years ago. I didnt like the movie adaptation.
Gollum is a "he" not an "it"
"literally touch the ring" and then proceeds to show gollum LITERALLY never touch the ring. Careful of using the word literally. It's way overused.
Peter Jackson got nearly everything wrong.
He got everything right
@@bogjesrbin484 you spelled “wrong’ incorrectly.
@@daviddawson6150 Peter Jackson managed to adapt tolkiens the lord of the rings beautifully. Best trilogy ever made
@@bogjesrbin484 - Jackson managed to screw up one of the most beloved stories of all time, and basically ripped off the Bakshi adaptation. The Hobbit films showed Jackson’s true colours. Total arse gravy. Lord of the Rings in name only.
@@daviddawson6150 Thank God Peter Jackson was the director of the lord of the rings. His adaptation is brilliant, I rewatch the trilogy once a year and it never gets boring
you do know the reason why movies don't completely copy the book because it's not there work and they cannot fit in everything
No-one expects the movies to copy the books scene-by-scene. It is, however, fair game to compare a book and its adaptation and see what was changed, how and why, and if those changes contribute to the story or detract.
Precisely why this channel exists. Btw, possession is “their”, not “there”. Cheers.
To be fair, some of the changes made were unnecessary.
No one is saying the movies had to follow the book word for word 100%, but the movies could have been better if they followed the book more.