In the book, Frodo sells Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses. Then the husband and son die during Saruman's takeover and the Scouring of the Shire, and the old lady after having been imprisoned and starved decides to leave. I can't remember if she sold it back to Frodo or if he inherited it back, then it was quite the process before Frodo left it to Sam and his huge family.
19:27 Also, the problem with this sin is that Pippin actually wandered around for some time before he found Merry. CinemaSins makes it sound like he found him quickly.
Again, mostly in full agreement with you. Couple of minor things: 1.) Palantir throwing: It is not clear if Grima was aiming at Saruman or Gandalf. Aragorn makes this point clear: 'The aim was poor, maybe, because he could not make up his mind which he hated more, you or Saruman,' Whereas Eomer assumed that Gandalf was the intended target. 2.) Pippin in Palantir: One point you didn't make clear was this one... Sauron would have gotten a report from Grishnakh that Saruman's uruks had captured two halflings. Since Sauron knew that a halfling carried the Ring, it would not be that far of a stretch that he would assume that the halfling in the Orthanc stone would be the Ring-bearer. Grishnakh himself was trying to find the Ring on Merry and Pippin when he 'kidnapped' them from the other orcs during the Rohirrim attack. 3.) Dunharrow is far from being the easternmost fortress that Rohan has. Aldburg in Eastfold would be closer to Minas Tirith. However, what it does have is concealment. It is relatively central, and unlike Edoras, it can be reached by mountain trails. Hence, the Rohirrim are able to gather without alerting Sauron. As Gandalf explains it: 'When we came, we meant to go straight from Isengard back to the king's house at Edoras over the plains, a ride of some days. But we have taken thought and changed the plan. Messengers have gone ahead to Helm's Deep, to warn them that the king is returning tomorrow. He will ride from there with many men to Dunharrow by paths among the hills. From now on no more than two or three together are to go openly over the land, by day or night, when it can be avoided.' 4.) Newly arrived orc armies: Yes, this is even stated outright in the books, as Sauron strikes too quickly, before his full might is gathered, thanks to Aragorn taunting him via the palantir. Gandalf states: ‘For it seems clear that our Enemy has opened his war at last and made the first move while Frodo was still free. So now for many days he will have his eye turned this way and that, away from his own land. And yet, Pippin, I feel from afar his haste and fear. He has begun sooner than he would. Something has happened to stir him.’ I am pretty sure that it is made more explicit elsewhere, too, but this is good enough for me.
In response to 4: We also witness the Easterlings arriving, and he clearly sent most or all of them to Minas Tirith, and why wouldn't you keep a standing army as defense regardless of your plans anyway? So many reasons why he still has a huge army in Mordor.
@@TolkienLorePodcast: *You:* "Maybe he inherited it from a shorter hobbit" *Me:* "Frodo also handed Sam the book with his & Bilbo's stories saying: The last pages are for you, Sam. So..."
This. In FotR, Sauron was still weak, the Nazgûl were much weaker, they were very far from their source of power in a completely foreign land. They were weaker and playing a different tactic.
The thing with the Palantir and Sauruman is that it's basically like the scourge of the Shire. It just made more sense to have a little scuffle in the beginning of the movie rather at the end after the ring was destroyed, Gondor is saved etc. Could you imagine what non book fans would say if Jackson followed the ending of the book, they complain already about there being too many endings.
And, 5 years after this comment, I'd like to add that in fact Peter Jackson very smartly had Frodo not mention he was leaving so that the entire emotional catharsis of the tragedy of war and its lasting impact that one has to process (which the scouring of the Shire is about) was very neatly summed up in one line: "The Shire was saved, Sam... but not for me." It was beautiful.
It is worth noting that the palantir do have some corruption aura to them, like how the one belonging to Orthanc led to Saruman changing sides, the reason for all of this being that Sauron has the Ithil stone, and uses it to exert his will on others who use the stones
I agree. However, I watched the movies before reading the books, and had many of these questions before reading the books. I would say that about 75% of people who watched the movies have not read the books themselves, and are left with lore questions like why doesn't Gandalf use his powers and just make life easier. Anybody who knows the lore knows that its's because the Valar forbade the Wizards from revealing the full extent of their powers while in Middle Earth, but this is not touched on in the movies themselves.
True, but in every story with “magic” (or other mysterious power) there’s always the question of “Why can’t so-and-so just do X?” Some limitations just have to be taken as given no matter what, because there’s no way to really totally explain why, for instances, Obi Wan Kenobi couldn’t just use the Force to crash Star Destroyers into each other for an easy win. Size matters not, after all. :P
I don’t think it’s really the case. And I think even cinema sins themselves have even said it themselves is that their videos are more for comedic and satire purposes, they aren’t supposed to be taken quite literal on everything.
The movies did in fact explain that the morgul blade would have turned Frodo into a wraith. The rest was left out, I think, but I feel it was implied well enough. And Jeremy asks if we care about Denethor saying he wished his sons traded who died and who lived, wow that is just cold and stupid.
On his whole Aragorn meeting Theoden on top of a cliff: THEODEN IS KING!!! Jesus Christ. Does he think it'd be easier to protect the king by having him camp out in the middle of a field? This was a legitimate defense strategy in medieval times. You want your army's leader to survive a battle? Camp on the high ground.
I'm pretty sure that some Gondorian soldiers realised that Faramir is alive but they don't wanna enrage an already mad and delusional King who has lost all hope.
Well, first the ring story wraps up, then Frodo gets to know that Gandalf is alive and everyone gets to reunite and catch up, but then the Aragorn's story needs to wrap up (the very namesake of the movie). Then the Hobbits still need to go home, and obviously the end could have been even longer, and rightfully so. But finally returning home isn't the end of the story, and why should it be? Then we have to wrap up Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, the Elves and ring bearers as a whole, and only then can Sam return home to his happy ending. And we could keep going thanks to the appendices, but people complain about how long this is as is.
Minas Tirith is not practical? What? Minas Tirith is the most practical and impressive city design you could imagine if you consider it withstood the biggest siege of the Third Age. Osgiliath was a more typical sprawling city on a plain and it was destroyed by the forces of Mordor. All the conveniences of "not using the ladders" didn't help the massacred inhabitants of Osgiliath even one bit in the end.
ScarFace Can Minas Tirith would be a very formidable fortresses in our middle ages too. Just the fact of it's verticality and internal division would make it impregnable to direct assault. No mater that you breached the outer walls and crushed the Great Gate - you have six more to go. There are some existing castles that have a very similar layout to Gondor's capital and they were never conquered by a siege. Great example is Hochosterwitz castle in Austria with it's 14 gatehouses.
Did Frodo wear the ring AFTER the high throne of seeing?? So why would Saron know Pip is different from Frodo? Look at history...the tower city of Gondor was based upon several HISTORICAL cities.
Pippin didn’t just “wander out the door” and find Merry. After the battle soldiers were sent out to find survivors. That is not stated in the movie as it is in the book, but it just makes sense that they would do that. Did Cinemasins think they just left the injured to die where they were?
Okay I’ve been binging your LOTR debunking videos and I absolutely love them but I’m commenting to say that “moral health” is not a term I’d heard before but wow, that is incredibly useful. So, thank you!
I feel like CinemaSins just didn't get the overwhelming, overpowering and overly, as well as overtly present theme of friendship that basically controls the story of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien really, really, really liked his friendships, that's why a lot of things that happen in his works happened the way they did.
21:24 Yes, he only says it in the Extended TTT, but he says it in both versions of RotK. It's probably the theatrical difference that led to its inclusion in RotK at all.
"Yes, but do we give a shit (about Faramir)?" is such a wildly bizarre criticism that I can't wrap my head around it. It's barely anything more than "I don't like this character and his story is stupid. Plot hole! Ding!"
He’s a different thing. I believe he is said to be a sorcerer, and is apparently mortal, but is said to have forgotten his own name which seems to imply crazy longevity.
Enjoying your videos. Detail--in the books it was Glorfindel who said that The Witch KIng of Angmar would not be killed by man. In the movies I'm not sure it anyone says that before the actual battle of Pellenor fields when the witch king himself says it.
Gandalf says (though this might be only in the extended edition) to Pippin that he is “the one they say no man can kill,” but he doesn’t attribute it to anyone specific.
I believe there is some extra context for the witch king, is he not one of the earliest numenorean kings? Before the power of the combined blood lines of elf, maia and human had faded... Makes sense that he would be much more powerful than a normal elf, possibly on a near level with a maia if he had been augmented by his years under sauron (and notes by Tolkien indicate that this was in fact the case).
My understanding was that the ringwraiths were all of the Numenoreans, as that was where Sauron went, disguised as Annatar, using the 9 rings to corrupt them before the destruction of Numenor itself. Of course Sauron would have been attracted to the Numenoreans who were not just men, but the most powerful among men. Not much fun to ensnare 9 men, but what could he do with 9 Numenoreans with the blood of Melian and Luthien running in their veins? It has been a good couple of decades since I read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, so I'm a bit rusty, but I believe it is correct. lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Witch-king_of_Angmar If so, remember that the Numenorean kings were descendents of Elros, in turn, descendents of Beren and Luthien, Luthien being an exceptionally powerful being in her own right, a descendant of a powerful elf and a powerful Maia - presumably one of the more powerful Maia (as opposed to Olorin, who considered himself to be one of the lesser Maia). Aragorn is also one of the Numenorean kings, but if you look at the genealogy in the appendices, you can see how the power of that bloodline had faded dramatically by the time of Aragorn. I can't remember exactly, but there are thousands of years between the reign of the Witch King of Angmar as a Numenorean and the birth of Aragorn II (the movie Aragorn). Aragorn was not a normal man, but he was far far below the power of the Witch-King. And the Witch-King for his part was far, far beyond the power that he originally had as a Numenorean. That makes it make more sense that the Witch-King could hold his own against Gandalf, why Gandalf could hold him at bay during the daytime (when he was weaker and Gandalf was stronger), but makes it hard to rationalize the retreat at Weathertop. Except that the book suggests that it was a poor terrain choice for a battle, and as you say, it was more convenient to just use the Morgul Blade and back off. Stepping off a ledge might be another loophole to the prophecy that he would not die at the hand of a man. It is also known that the Witch King was aware of the prophecy to do with not being killable by men, and perhaps why he was afraid of fire, since if he was to be burned, it's possible that he would be killed by fire, rather than a man and in his mind, he might have entertained that as a loophole to his perceived invulnerability. He might even have been hoping to capture Aragorn rather than kill him out of a filial connection.
I’m fairly certain one of the Ringwraiths is referred to as an Easterner, actually. But the Witch King could have been Numenorean, I just don’t think he was a Numenorean king.
I did some checking on this and you're correct. Although when I read it originally, I remember having some thought that they had possibly counted one of the kings on the actual genealogy list to have died even though he might have simply "turned to the dark side"... I believe that the Witch King is strongly suspected to be Numenorean and the idea is that presumably three of the Nazgul at least are of Numenor, while a few are from other places. Khamul the Easterling is of course one I forgot about and was only one of the non-Numenorean candidates. I think it would make sense that the greatest of the 9 would be Numenorean, and probably of the line of Luthien, albeit not an ascended king. Some great stories could come from that interaction of Annatar and his corruption of the Witch-King. Alas.
@@TolkienLorePodcast he certainly made her hurt bad, and run. Sam slashed her belly but made no real mark, and then Shelob tried to squish Sam, but he was holding Sting in both hands above his head. It's never expressly said that she died.
@@ThatSockmonkey It's actually expressly left ambiguous, although the wording makes it sound more like injury than death. Still impressive given that Shelob was the daughter of a creature who could make Morgoth fear for his life.
I wish I had known about you earlier because I have the original video on my computer. I downloaded it from RUclips the day it was uploaded.If I recall correctly, the video was taken down due to a copyright claim.
Regarding CS's comments about Theoden and the Two Towers: There's the scene where Theoden complains that Gondor didn't help them when the Westfold was attacked, and that old alliances have no value anymore. I can see Cinemasins' point, since he WAS saved by the revived alliance with the Elves in Helm's Deep, which should have ended this character-arc and made him a little more open. I don't know why exactly he refuses the ride to Gondor at this point.
How do you feel about Middle Earth based RPGs like One Ring and Adventures in Middle Earth? How much could you make up and still stay close to the book lore?
Tolkien Lore The One Ring I've never played but Adventures in Middle Earth is a direct D&D 5th Edition conversion. I must say it captures the feel of Tolkien's world quite well.
Sounds interesting, might have to check those out. As far as staying close to the books, I guess it depends on what storyline you go with. If you go with straight up Fellowship characters in a LOTR-based story, you’d probably have to make some modifications, though I daresay you could still stick fairly closely to the source material. If you want to go with Appendices material, you’d have to make up a lot more but would run little risk of directly contradicting anything.
Adventures takes place during the time between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I would definitely recommend you check it out if you're a Dungeons and Dragons fan. The two books Loremaster's Guide (DMs Guide) and the Player's Guide are very well made and written.
There is one sin that CS should have included but missed completely, in the scene where Galdalf rides out and drives the Nazgul back, why dose he take Pippin with him, it makes no sense.
Trust me I really HATE cinema sins as well. Seriously annoying how whiny and negative he is and al it’s everything he says I debunk in my head almost instantly. To all of his videos
20:40 he doesn’t have to cut the webs either, they’re webs... he could’ve just grabbed it and ran. Btw I fucking hate cinema sins. They try so hard and just force little annoying criticisms that aren’t relevant at all
The Dynamic between the Witch King and Gandalf in the extended cut is just simply wrong(though it's a real cool scene) Its wrong because Gandalf the White. This is more significant than most watching the films realize. The Ainur are creatures of pure sprit who clothe themselves in flesh to interact better. The Istari are all Ainur that are as was said in a previous video forbidden to win by using their powers openly. This order came from Manwe. To aid his command they came in bodies similar to Old men so they were more physically limited as well there bodies would have difficulty sustaining under their full power. When Gandalf returned as Gandalf the White this ban has been lifted by Eru Illuvatar( god)God. The only thing that's not fully fleshed out is who Gandalf the White actually is. He could just be the Same Miar Olorin only at full strength but it's also been suggested that it was actually Manwe himself so no he was never in any danger from the Whitch King or anyone in Middle Earth at that point probably not even Sauron. But allowing the Men to succeed in their own right was the point.
The main issue I had with your "EWW LOTR" videos is that you sound like you try to explain things to Jeremy from CS and expect him to reflect on those things and consider them. But knowing what kind of hypocrite asshole Jeremy is, I imagined him responding to every point you make with his "I don't care. The books don't matter. Whatever." And that made me irrationally mad. :-D That being said, I loved your videos, I obviously love Tolkien and it's very nice how you explain the lore!
Stopped about half way through the video where he is talking about Frodo getting stabbed on Weathertop by the Which King. There is way more to this scene than meets the eye. Screen sins misunderstood it and so does our narrator and I know he did because this same misunderstanding is in his other videos. Here is the issue explained as it is in the books only the books explain hint at in the dialog they stop shot of just coming out and saying it plainly. What makes this confusing in the movie is the entire two scenes with Tom Bombadil are not in the films and the important part of Tom is not Tom himself but what he does for the fellowship that does not become apparent until the battle on the Pellanor fields. After leaving Tom they cross through the Barrow Downs that Tom warned them to steer clear of. Everything including Bree and The Shire that they walk through until the get to Weathertop was in the beginning of the Thrid Age the Kingdom of Arnor that was the Kingdom of Arigorns ancestors and the rest of the Dunadain so Frodo and Bilbo are actually every bit subjects of Arigorn as all the rest of the men of Gondor though he never treats them that way. Once he becomes King that Kingdom is also reestablished and the Hobbits are under their protection( as they always were) The Borrow Downs are the Burial Mounds of the fallen of Arnor from their battles against Angmar. Before or possibly after the Witch King departed for Mordor or DolGuldor he left behind Raiths like himself who had also been created by him with morgal blades or that were corrupted by one of the many lesser rings of power. These were called the Barrow Wights that were Raiths but of much lesser power. He left them to posess the dead and inhibit and trap those passing through the Downs. Those Men of Arnor created magical blades designed to do one thing and one only. Raiths including both the Barrow Wights and the Nazgul were total slaves to Saurons will like chess pieces. They were held bound to that will, bound by the spells upon their rings even though it was Sauron who possessed those rings and they didn't wear them( this leads one to believe that tough he didn't have the one Sauron was using the other rings.) The Numenorean/Arnor swords were created to seperate the will from the human body and spirit underneath so they could then be killed. This is exactly what happens to the Whitch King when Merry stabs him from behind and Eowin kills him. When they went through the Downs and were captured by the Wights and they call on Tom for help. He Rescues them and gives them the swords explaining they were special and what their origin was and what the Downs actually were. Though he didn't tell them why the swords were special. Even Frodos or Gandalfs Magical Elf blades could not do this. On Weathertop when the Witch King was actually shocked and taken aback that one so small and seemingly insignificant resisted him and he was then further shocked by the appearance of the Blades of Arnor that he both recognized and understood what they were for. He also briefly recollected that his forces in Angmar had fought creatures such as this at the Battle of Fornost( Gandalf relays this story to Bilbo about his Took ancestor in the Hobbit film) and lost to them.( There were only a small contingent of Took Hobbits in that Battle but they did hold their own) So what's happening on Weathertop is foreshadowing for the Whitch King of his own demise and he suspects it.
10:46 CS didnt missed the idea and usefullness of the fires, yet you start to give an explanation like they questioned it. Sometimes they just point out fun or weird facts with their " sins " and in this case, simply comment that it must be an awful job camping out there day after day. 16:00 CS sins this because the knockout was long over due because of his incompetence, not the fact that he did it. 16:35 Gollom have survived torture and aging thanks to the ring yes, but I cant remember anything from previous movies that says his bones is that hardend to make it out in one piece after that fall. What we can see its a pretty long fall, and even after he disapears in the dark you can still hear his scream fading, assuming he falls even longer. Him surviving I can buy, but his bones should be broken/shattered to pieces, especially since they are on a mountain. 26:51 A shorter hobbit maybe buillt the house and therefore made the door smaller? If you compare the hobbits they seem to have pretty much the same heights, and even if it varies some, it makes zero sense to build a door smaller. Some mansions castles etc have doors up to 4-5 meters long that small ppl can open with ease, so a 20 cm shorter hobbit making a 20 cm shorter door is just not a good explanation. Not to mention the problem bigger guests will have and if he wants to sell it later on.
Oh my Cripes!! It's like this idiot failed to *HEAR* _The Circle of Life_ song, (Yes, he sinned The Lion King 1994 for BS reasons!) and wanted the movie to end with Simba's roar in the rain just before the dissolve to the foliage growing back & the birth of Kiara!!!
Well, in the Two Towers, Theoden says how Gondor didn't come to their aid and how the Westfold burnt because of it. Now, he has some right to ask why should they help Gondor when they didn't get any help. I get that Gondor gets hit the hardest and is constantly warring against Mordor because they are close but 200 men would've meant a lot to Rohan, at least as a moral support. Also, in the novies Denethor is a different man and his son died which drove him mad, so Theoden is similar to him cause he also lost his son but didn't despair in such a way. So, again, he is thinking why should I help someone who is lesser than me but didn't help me when I needed him to.
When the Westfold burnt, Theoden was still under Saruman's influence - and no one there at Meduseld even knew it had happened until that half-dead child arrived on a horse. Gondor didn't come to Rohan's aid because no-one asked.
Overall, this was a pretty fair debunking of Cinemasins. Other channels don't always go so thorough, and some can't avoid some cheap shots, but you're always giving as much leeway as possible. I'd honestly not have been that generous, since many of the more popular complains start to get on my nerves, because they just never dry down and overstay their welcome.
I think what CS is trying to get at with the "Because of the whole plot of the Two Towers" in regards to Theoden is the fact that Gondor never came to Rohan's aid, even though Gondor didnt know about it most likely which I don't think he took into account (which doesn't surprise me). Great video btw!
The weird thing is that the movie (and this may only be in the extended edition) shows a conversation where Faramir and his right-hand guy are discussing Rohan’s situation, based on their “scouts.” But how would Theoden know that? That’s the real problem they should have raised.
+Tolkien Lore I totally forgot about that scene (I've only ever seen the EE of TT and RotK) so yeah that makes sense that he didn't talk about that instead.
that CinemaSins narrator sounds so frustratingly glib, yet he knows jack shit. I think they do this on purpose to maximize views / people talking about their content.
I hate that cinemasins is like an overly logical nerd that thinks he is smarter and better then everyone, he wants world to be the way he wants it to be and thinks that he is the only one who would think straight in a critical situation, overlooking that humans are not roborts. They are emotional creatures that dont know much and you might think that you would act in a certain situation in the best logical and smartest way, but would actually do pretty much the same. Because humans are not all powerfull, after all they are just mortal creatures that are scared of death.
I've got a question that seems to be a film plot hole that Cinema Sins didn't pick up. Why does Elrond not join Arwen and the other elves to depart Middle-Earth?
I’m not sure that’s really a plot hole. Lots of elves were still left so we could easily assume Elrond is just trying to get Arwen out early to keep her safe while he’s waiting to take a later ship.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation! I think what's ultimately throwing me is that the film depicts Arwen as extra vulnerable. Elrond tells Aragorn in Dunharrow that she's dying. I get that the power of the elvish rings is diminishing, and that their lands are fading. (To me, Gandalf's fading ring Narya this could partly explain why he didn't do more at Battle of Pelennor Fields or vs the witch king in the film.) But otherwise, we don't see the elves themselves struggling as much as Arwen. Going along with the film, is it fair to say Arwen essentially gave up her immortality when she gave Aragorn the Evenstar and insisted he keep it? Or is there another explanation? Thanks so much for taking the time to reply. I really appreciate your videos!
I’m not sure how to explain Arwen’s “vulnerability” from the perspective of the books (where at any rate such vulnerability is not suggested) unless she’s dying of grief. Elrond in the movie seems to suggest it has something to do with the evil spreading from Mordor but that’s just Jackson’s invention, so it seems a unique, ad hoc problem invented from whole cloth. Also the Elven Rings were not diminishing, even in the movies as far as I can tell. They only lose their power when the One is destroyed. As for when Arwen gave up her immortality, the movie only really makes sense if she didn’t give it up till after she almost went to the Havens. It seems like only after she returns that “the life of the Eldar” leaves her, as Elrond says. But in the book I would think it would either be when she betrothed herself to Aragorn or when they actually wed.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Okay, thanks for that thorough and quick explanation! I was hoping I could simply explain away the Witch King's dominance of Gandalf via the fading rings. (I wish the duel had been more competitive.) I thought of that idea from a joke I heard Peter Jackson tell McKellen, that Gandalf had run out of batteries and all the stores were closed. But I suppose it makes sense they don't diminish and fail until either Sauron wins or is destroyed.
Yeah the face-off between WK and Gandalf is one of my pet peeves about the movie. Post-resurrection Gandalf is really powerful, and while he admits to Denethor that he might be outmatches by WK, it’s by no means clear he thinks he would certainly lose.
I will say this: I didn’t watch LotR until the Extended Cut came out. So I only know the Extended Edition, as far as the movies are concerned. That being said, I did read the books and do like SOME of the liberties Jackson took to keep pace of a TRILOGY of books telling what is ultimately combined into a single story. The other thing is that Jackson made a faithful gesture to keep switching between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, and the rest of the Fellowship since, in the book, you basically split the entire story in half where one half focuses on Frodo’s side, while the other half focuses on the other members’ side. It probably wasn’t easy trying to keep the scenes straight, which was also done in the animated movies. Beyond all that, the only book I didn’t read was the Silmarillion, among other outside stories, so as much as I loved the Wolf’s head, learning of its reference to an ACTUAL werewolf is nice to know! Makes that scene all the more impactful... metaphorically speaking.
Sorry, this channel is all Tolkien all the time. But there is a channel out there dedicated to Debunking CinemaSins. Can’t remember the name off hand though....
Tolkien Lore Shaun is a good channel for ripping into Cinemasins. I believe there’s another channel if one searches “everything wrong with everything wrong with”.
Yeah you gotta make a hole other movie to explain the Hobbits rebellion against Saruman and how Sam got to be a hero for all Hobbits and Mayor but then again he gets murdered WAY before he actually did. And btw it was kind of bs that Gandalf didn't use the light to repel the Nazgul cause in the Two Towers we fucking fights the "fire demon" with a sword while using it as a source of its power as well and let's remember that by then he was still Gandalf the grey
Maybe I'm being the devil's advocate here, but you can't blame cinema sins for bashing some aspects of the trilogy. 80% of your debunking from your 3-episode series is based on lore from the books and cinema sins don't have to know the books. They analyze the movies as they are. If something is "dumb' or seems like a plot hole - they point it out. You can't defend the movies hiding behind the shield of the book trilogy all the time. If they wanted to criticise the books, they would criticise the books.
Could catapults even shoot that high? I'm no expert on medieval siege weaponry, but I'm pretty sure that even the best catapults possible couldn't do it. To launch a projectile that high, you'd need a rocket or something.
You don't take yourself - and a serious critique of a entertaining critique (which some take SERIOUSLY) of an entertainment film (which many take _very_ SERIOUSLY) - seriously enough.
Bitofinger Alastname: Not gonna tolerate language like that (deleted your comment). If you want to make a constructive criticism go ahead, but insulting expletives are going too far.
CinemaSins is literally there for us to have a laugh and those of us with a sense of humor both laugh AND STILL APPRECIATE THE MOVIE. this video is pathetic
If cinemasins has annoyed you enough to make a video countering their points then they've done their jobs. Look, they themselves admit that they don't necessarily care about accuracy. It's humor. They nitpick for the sake of comedy. You're taking them way too seriously. In many videos they'll sin a pretty actress simply because she isn't doing a lap dance. Just watch the videos for their comedic value because they're the first to tell you that the sins don't matter.
Then they shouldn’t use obvious falsehoods in their criticisms. That’s not funny. Their humor defense is pure rationalization. Yes they’re going for humor but they’re also clearly trying to point out real inaccuracies.
Those who complain about this video are doing exactly what they are complaining about. We are allowed to laugh at what we perceive as mistakes. We are also allowed to correct mistakes that others make. Discussion is good. I enjoyed this video, though it is not perfect. I also enjoy cinemasins, though it is not perfect.
Cinema sins: let's make a humoristic retaliation of "sins" from a movie This guy: Everything is explained in the book and the extended version and I'll take everything you say WAY too seriously. ThIs MoViE Is PeRfEct!!1!1
I get that you love LOTR, and that is why you are very defensive. Cinemasins is very tongue in cheek with very few valid criticisms. And you can't point to the books everytime there is a problem in the movies, they should stand alone. I enjoyed some of the points you made and I learned something about the books. But your sensitiveness and not willing to concede any points when cinemasins makes a valid point is very off putting.
@@TolkienLorePodcast after you concede the point about the bread crumbs, you said they finally got one and you called them nerds with nothing better to do. I am not sure if that was dig at yourself as well as I am sure you spend a lot of time thinking about LOTR, nothing wrong with that. Fair enough about them bringing up the books, but usually they say if the explanation is in the book and not in the movie then it doesn't count. Anyways, I never read the books so it was nice to get some context and it makes the movie more enjoyable.
Also in case of any adaption yes, the source material is important since realistically a movie adaption is meant for the fans first the movie going public second, you want it to make sense to the general public but it isn't a plot hole to include information that people who have read the source material will understand and the general audience does not. Also I know this is a two month old comment but the books don't matter defense has always irked me about CS, cause that's just an excuse to be wrong as far as I am concerned
I have too say, when you make a movie, you have too make it make sense for the people who didn't read the books. Its not right too say " well its explained in the book" or "it's explained in the extended edition. Its CinemaSins, for general audience not nerds. Also the 3 LOTR films have lower sin counts then almost every other movie. CinemaSins took it easy on lotr and I could find many other sins, they are wonderful films but not masterpieces
@@TolkienLorePodcast And??? my point is that movies are responsible too make the movie make sense for the non nerds who dont know the source material. And cinemasins doesnt take itself too seriously, which is a trait we all need...
I don't like how snarky you are. I did not know a lot of the things that you claim were pretty obvious. And in all fairness, I actually like Cinemasins, even though I know a lot of the stuff they sin are stupid. Heck, even they know it. That's the point. It is a kind of humor that is not really for everyone.
CinemaSins entire shtick is being a snarky asshole and he's often a complete moron in his attempts at actual criticism. So whining about someone giving an asshole a taste of his own medicine, and then saying "well you just don't understand the comedy" just makes you a defensive nut-hugger. It's fine to enjoy whatever mindless RUclips entertainment you like, but don't be a whiny bitch when someone like Tolkien Lore steps up against C.S.'s shitty-jokey-joke "criticism" with a factually informed response.
How can you get this mad at a video which sole purpose is to be entertaining? Y'all acting like they insulted your ancestors or something. Chill. It's a good laugh and nothing else nerds :'D
My reaction watching this video. "BORING!" "DON'T CARE!" And "OH MY GOD, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A JOKE IS?!" I don't even like cinema sins, but at least their older videos can be entertaining. Yours are just a boring slog to hit through. Please work on your presentation and delivery because this is just unbearable to listen to.
In the book, Sam inherited Bag End from Frodo.
In the book, Frodo sells Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses. Then the husband and son die during Saruman's takeover and the Scouring of the Shire, and the old lady after having been imprisoned and starved decides to leave.
I can't remember if she sold it back to Frodo or if he inherited it back, then it was quite the process before Frodo left it to Sam and his huge family.
19:27 Also, the problem with this sin is that Pippin actually wandered around for some time before he found Merry. CinemaSins makes it sound like he found him quickly.
Again, mostly in full agreement with you. Couple of minor things:
1.) Palantir throwing: It is not clear if Grima was aiming at Saruman or Gandalf. Aragorn makes this point clear: 'The aim was poor, maybe, because he could not make up his mind which he hated more, you or Saruman,' Whereas Eomer assumed that Gandalf was the intended target.
2.) Pippin in Palantir: One point you didn't make clear was this one... Sauron would have gotten a report from Grishnakh that Saruman's uruks had captured two halflings. Since Sauron knew that a halfling carried the Ring, it would not be that far of a stretch that he would assume that the halfling in the Orthanc stone would be the Ring-bearer. Grishnakh himself was trying to find the Ring on Merry and Pippin when he 'kidnapped' them from the other orcs during the Rohirrim attack.
3.) Dunharrow is far from being the easternmost fortress that Rohan has. Aldburg in Eastfold would be closer to Minas Tirith. However, what it does have is concealment. It is relatively central, and unlike Edoras, it can be reached by mountain trails. Hence, the Rohirrim are able to gather without alerting Sauron. As Gandalf explains it: 'When we came, we meant to go straight from Isengard back to the king's house at Edoras over the plains, a ride of some days. But we have taken thought and changed the plan. Messengers have gone ahead to Helm's Deep, to warn them that the king is returning tomorrow. He will ride from there with many men to Dunharrow by paths among the hills. From now on no more than two or three together are to go openly over the land, by day or night, when it can be avoided.'
4.) Newly arrived orc armies: Yes, this is even stated outright in the books, as Sauron strikes too quickly, before his full might is gathered, thanks to Aragorn taunting him via the palantir. Gandalf states:
‘For it seems clear that our Enemy has opened his war at last and made the first move while Frodo was still free. So now for many days he will have his eye turned this way and that, away from his own land. And yet, Pippin, I feel from afar his haste and fear. He has begun sooner than he would. Something has happened to stir him.’
I am pretty sure that it is made more explicit elsewhere, too, but this is good enough for me.
In response to 4: We also witness the Easterlings arriving, and he clearly sent most or all of them to Minas Tirith, and why wouldn't you keep a standing army as defense regardless of your plans anyway? So many reasons why he still has a huge army in Mordor.
You should do a version of this on CinemaWins as well! Talking about agreeing and disagreeing with what he think is a win in the movies!
I didn’t know that was a thing-I’ll have to check them out. :)
@@TolkienLorePodcast He just started, did Fellowship a couple of weeks ago and is doing Two towers this week!
@@TolkienLorePodcast
Did you ever check them out?
@@TolkienLorePodcast:
*You:* "Maybe he inherited it from a shorter hobbit"
*Me:* "Frodo also handed Sam the book with his & Bilbo's stories saying: The last pages are for you, Sam. So..."
Huh?
Witch-King gains power as his lord regains it. The nxt lvl strong witch-king is not the same one as the one who stabbed Frodo in terms of power.
This. In FotR, Sauron was still weak, the Nazgûl were much weaker, they were very far from their source of power in a completely foreign land. They were weaker and playing a different tactic.
The thing with the Palantir and Sauruman is that it's basically like the scourge of the Shire. It just made more sense to have a little scuffle in the beginning of the movie rather at the end after the ring was destroyed, Gondor is saved etc. Could you imagine what non book fans would say if Jackson followed the ending of the book, they complain already about there being too many endings.
And, 5 years after this comment, I'd like to add that in fact Peter Jackson very smartly had Frodo not mention he was leaving so that the entire emotional catharsis of the tragedy of war and its lasting impact that one has to process (which the scouring of the Shire is about) was very neatly summed up in one line: "The Shire was saved, Sam... but not for me."
It was beautiful.
It is worth noting that the palantir do have some corruption aura to them, like how the one belonging to Orthanc led to Saruman changing sides, the reason for all of this being that Sauron has the Ithil stone, and uses it to exert his will on others who use the stones
Cinemasins likes to take advantage of viewer ignorance to come up with many of their "sins" it seems to me.
I agree. However, I watched the movies before reading the books, and had many of these questions before reading the books. I would say that about 75% of people who watched the movies have not read the books themselves, and are left with lore questions like why doesn't Gandalf use his powers and just make life easier. Anybody who knows the lore knows that its's because the Valar forbade the Wizards from revealing the full extent of their powers while in Middle Earth, but this is not touched on in the movies themselves.
True, but in every story with “magic” (or other mysterious power) there’s always the question of “Why can’t so-and-so just do X?” Some limitations just have to be taken as given no matter what, because there’s no way to really totally explain why, for instances, Obi Wan Kenobi couldn’t just use the Force to crash Star Destroyers into each other for an easy win. Size matters not, after all. :P
I don’t think it’s really the case. And I think even cinema sins themselves have even said it themselves is that their videos are more for comedic and satire purposes, they aren’t supposed to be taken quite literal on everything.
oh my god cinema sins is literally just a joke...theyre making a joke on themselves by being overly picky lol
The movies did in fact explain that the morgul blade would have turned Frodo into a wraith. The rest was left out, I think, but I feel it was implied well enough.
And Jeremy asks if we care about Denethor saying he wished his sons traded who died and who lived, wow that is just cold and stupid.
The beacons aren't for Rohan but for the rest of Gondor, they do sent a rider to Rohan with the red arrow.
Strictly speaking I think they’re for both Gondor and Rohan, but I’d have to check myself on that.
The subtitles are in Italian
Glad I showed my ignorance there. 😂
Don't worry. 😆
Could have sworn it was italian rather than spanish but wasnt sure. TBF they are easy to confuse for one another.
@@Raptorworld22 For people who haven't been exposed to the languages. Not so easy for people who speak any of them
@@harsimaja9517 I actually do know a small bit of Italian, enough to sing certain songs. But ok.
On his whole Aragorn meeting Theoden on top of a cliff: THEODEN IS KING!!! Jesus Christ. Does he think it'd be easier to protect the king by having him camp out in the middle of a field? This was a legitimate defense strategy in medieval times. You want your army's leader to survive a battle? Camp on the high ground.
I'm pretty sure that some Gondorian soldiers realised that Faramir is alive but they don't wanna enrage an already mad and delusional King who has lost all hope.
Well, first the ring story wraps up, then Frodo gets to know that Gandalf is alive and everyone gets to reunite and catch up, but then the Aragorn's story needs to wrap up (the very namesake of the movie). Then the Hobbits still need to go home, and obviously the end could have been even longer, and rightfully so. But finally returning home isn't the end of the story, and why should it be? Then we have to wrap up Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, the Elves and ring bearers as a whole, and only then can Sam return home to his happy ending.
And we could keep going thanks to the appendices, but people complain about how long this is as is.
Minas Tirith is not practical? What? Minas Tirith is the most practical and impressive city design you could imagine if you consider it withstood the biggest siege of the Third Age.
Osgiliath was a more typical sprawling city on a plain and it was destroyed by the forces of Mordor.
All the conveniences of "not using the ladders" didn't help the massacred inhabitants of Osgiliath even one bit in the end.
Not getting killed is overrated.
ScarFace Can Minas Tirith would be a very formidable fortresses in our middle ages too. Just the fact of it's verticality and internal division would make it impregnable to direct assault. No mater that you breached the outer walls and crushed the Great Gate - you have six more to go.
There are some existing castles that have a very similar layout to Gondor's capital and they were never conquered by a siege. Great example is Hochosterwitz castle in Austria with it's 14 gatehouses.
Christian Changer where do they get their food?
Food never comes from within a castle, always from surrounding farmlands, in this case the Pelennor fields.
Did Frodo wear the ring AFTER the high throne of seeing?? So why would Saron know Pip is different from Frodo?
Look at history...the tower city of Gondor was based upon several HISTORICAL cities.
I don’t think Frodo wears the ring after that until Mt. Doom. But in at least one of the early Ring scenes Sauron clearly says “I see you” lol
Pippin didn’t just “wander out the door” and find Merry. After the battle soldiers were sent out to find survivors. That is not stated in the movie as it is in the book, but it just makes sense that they would do that. Did Cinemasins think they just left the injured to die where they were?
Okay I’ve been binging your LOTR debunking videos and I absolutely love them but I’m commenting to say that “moral health” is not a term I’d heard before but wow, that is incredibly useful. So, thank you!
although i understand that cinemasins wouldnt really want to compare it to the book 90% of the cinemasins points are wrong
Wasn’t the battering ram Grond also made in the image of Morgoth’s mace of the same name?
No, just named after it.
I feel like CinemaSins just didn't get the overwhelming, overpowering and overly, as well as overtly present theme of friendship that basically controls the story of the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien really, really, really liked his friendships, that's why a lot of things that happen in his works happened the way they did.
21:24
Yes, he only says it in the Extended TTT, but he says it in both versions of RotK. It's probably the theatrical difference that led to its inclusion in RotK at all.
"Yes, but do we give a shit (about Faramir)?" is such a wildly bizarre criticism that I can't wrap my head around it. It's barely anything more than "I don't like this character and his story is stupid. Plot hole! Ding!"
Why does Aragorn's horse disappear after the speech at the black gate?
I assume he lets it go. No sense keeping it since a cavalry charge is pointless.
This may seem like a dumb question, but is the Mouth of Sauron one of the Wraiths, or is he a separate entity entirely?
He’s a different thing. I believe he is said to be a sorcerer, and is apparently mortal, but is said to have forgotten his own name which seems to imply crazy longevity.
Tolkien Lore Thank you!
Enjoying your videos. Detail--in the books it was Glorfindel who said that The Witch KIng of Angmar would not be killed by man. In the movies I'm not sure it anyone says that before the actual battle of Pellenor fields when the witch king himself says it.
Gandalf says (though this might be only in the extended edition) to Pippin that he is “the one they say no man can kill,” but he doesn’t attribute it to anyone specific.
Ah. Okay--I stand corrected!
I believe there is some extra context for the witch king, is he not one of the earliest numenorean kings? Before the power of the combined blood lines of elf, maia and human had faded...
Makes sense that he would be much more powerful than a normal elf, possibly on a near level with a maia if he had been augmented by his years under sauron (and notes by Tolkien indicate that this was in fact the case).
I don’t think he was a Numenorean King. I’m not even sure there’s a solid answer as to who he is.
My understanding was that the ringwraiths were all of the Numenoreans, as that was where Sauron went, disguised as Annatar, using the 9 rings to corrupt them before the destruction of Numenor itself. Of course Sauron would have been attracted to the Numenoreans who were not just men, but the most powerful among men. Not much fun to ensnare 9 men, but what could he do with 9 Numenoreans with the blood of Melian and Luthien running in their veins? It has been a good couple of decades since I read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, so I'm a bit rusty, but I believe it is correct. lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Witch-king_of_Angmar
If so, remember that the Numenorean kings were descendents of Elros, in turn, descendents of Beren and Luthien, Luthien being an exceptionally powerful being in her own right, a descendant of a powerful elf and a powerful Maia - presumably one of the more powerful Maia (as opposed to Olorin, who considered himself to be one of the lesser Maia). Aragorn is also one of the Numenorean kings, but if you look at the genealogy in the appendices, you can see how the power of that bloodline had faded dramatically by the time of Aragorn. I can't remember exactly, but there are thousands of years between the reign of the Witch King of Angmar as a Numenorean and the birth of Aragorn II (the movie Aragorn).
Aragorn was not a normal man, but he was far far below the power of the Witch-King. And the Witch-King for his part was far, far beyond the power that he originally had as a Numenorean.
That makes it make more sense that the Witch-King could hold his own against Gandalf, why Gandalf could hold him at bay during the daytime (when he was weaker and Gandalf was stronger), but makes it hard to rationalize the retreat at Weathertop. Except that the book suggests that it was a poor terrain choice for a battle, and as you say, it was more convenient to just use the Morgul Blade and back off. Stepping off a ledge might be another loophole to the prophecy that he would not die at the hand of a man.
It is also known that the Witch King was aware of the prophecy to do with not being killable by men, and perhaps why he was afraid of fire, since if he was to be burned, it's possible that he would be killed by fire, rather than a man and in his mind, he might have entertained that as a loophole to his perceived invulnerability. He might even have been hoping to capture Aragorn rather than kill him out of a filial connection.
I’m fairly certain one of the Ringwraiths is referred to as an Easterner, actually. But the Witch King could have been Numenorean, I just don’t think he was a Numenorean king.
I did some checking on this and you're correct. Although when I read it originally, I remember having some thought that they had possibly counted one of the kings on the actual genealogy list to have died even though he might have simply "turned to the dark side"...
I believe that the Witch King is strongly suspected to be Numenorean and the idea is that presumably three of the Nazgul at least are of Numenor, while a few are from other places. Khamul the Easterling is of course one I forgot about and was only one of the non-Numenorean candidates.
I think it would make sense that the greatest of the 9 would be Numenorean, and probably of the line of Luthien, albeit not an ascended king. Some great stories could come from that interaction of Annatar and his corruption of the Witch-King. Alas.
Wait Sam killed shelob? I thought he injured it
Did I say killed? If I did it was a slip lol. Though technically Shelob’s fate is unknown.
@@TolkienLorePodcast he certainly made her hurt bad, and run. Sam slashed her belly but made no real mark, and then Shelob tried to squish Sam, but he was holding Sting in both hands above his head. It's never expressly said that she died.
@@ThatSockmonkey It's actually expressly left ambiguous, although the wording makes it sound more like injury than death. Still impressive given that Shelob was the daughter of a creature who could make Morgoth fear for his life.
I wish I had known about you earlier because I have the original video on my computer. I downloaded it from RUclips the day it was uploaded.If I recall correctly, the video was taken down due to a copyright claim.
Odd, why just that one I wonder?
I think it had something to due with music, but it was so long ago that I don't exactly remember.
Regarding CS's comments about Theoden and the Two Towers: There's the scene where Theoden complains that Gondor didn't help them when the Westfold was attacked, and that old alliances have no value anymore.
I can see Cinemasins' point, since he WAS saved by the revived alliance with the Elves in Helm's Deep, which should have ended this character-arc and made him a little more open. I don't know why exactly he refuses the ride to Gondor at this point.
How do you feel about Middle Earth based RPGs like One Ring and Adventures in Middle Earth? How much could you make up and still stay close to the book lore?
I’m actually not familiar with either of those. Are they tabletop RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons?
Tolkien Lore The One Ring I've never played but Adventures in Middle Earth is a direct D&D 5th Edition conversion. I must say it captures the feel of Tolkien's world quite well.
Sounds interesting, might have to check those out. As far as staying close to the books, I guess it depends on what storyline you go with. If you go with straight up Fellowship characters in a LOTR-based story, you’d probably have to make some modifications, though I daresay you could still stick fairly closely to the source material. If you want to go with Appendices material, you’d have to make up a lot more but would run little risk of directly contradicting anything.
Adventures takes place during the time between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I would definitely recommend you check it out if you're a Dungeons and Dragons fan. The two books Loremaster's Guide (DMs Guide) and the Player's Guide are very well made and written.
There is one sin that CS should have included but missed completely, in the scene where Galdalf rides out and drives the Nazgul back, why dose he take Pippin with him, it makes no sense.
Trust me I really HATE cinema sins as well. Seriously annoying how whiny and negative he is and al it’s everything he says I debunk in my head almost instantly. To all of his videos
20:40 he doesn’t have to cut the webs either, they’re webs... he could’ve just grabbed it and ran. Btw I fucking hate cinema sins. They try so hard and just force little annoying criticisms that aren’t relevant at all
The Dynamic between the Witch King and Gandalf in the extended cut is just simply wrong(though it's a real cool scene) Its wrong because Gandalf the White. This is more significant than most watching the films realize. The Ainur are creatures of pure sprit who clothe themselves in flesh to interact better. The Istari are all Ainur that are as was said in a previous video forbidden to win by using their powers openly. This order came from Manwe. To aid his command they came in bodies similar to Old men so they were more physically limited as well there bodies would have difficulty sustaining under their full power. When Gandalf returned as Gandalf the White this ban has been lifted by Eru Illuvatar( god)God. The only thing that's not fully fleshed out is who Gandalf the White actually is. He could just be the Same Miar Olorin only at full strength but it's also been suggested that it was actually Manwe himself so no he was never in any danger from the Whitch King or anyone in Middle Earth at that point probably not even Sauron. But allowing the Men to succeed in their own right was the point.
The main issue I had with your "EWW LOTR" videos is that you sound like you try to explain things to Jeremy from CS and expect him to reflect on those things and consider them. But knowing what kind of hypocrite asshole Jeremy is, I imagined him responding to every point you make with his "I don't care. The books don't matter. Whatever." And that made me irrationally mad. :-D
That being said, I loved your videos, I obviously love Tolkien and it's very nice how you explain the lore!
What I want to know is where you got the swords. I'm more than a little jealous
The Noble Collection.
Stopped about half way through the video where he is talking about Frodo getting stabbed on Weathertop by the Which King. There is way more to this scene than meets the eye. Screen sins misunderstood it and so does our narrator and I know he did because this same misunderstanding is in his other videos.
Here is the issue explained as it is in the books only the books explain hint at in the dialog they stop shot of just coming out and saying it plainly. What makes this confusing in the movie is the entire two scenes with Tom Bombadil are not in the films and the important part of Tom is not Tom himself but what he does for the fellowship that does not become apparent until the battle on the Pellanor fields. After leaving Tom they cross through the Barrow Downs that Tom warned them to steer clear of. Everything including Bree and The Shire that they walk through until the get to Weathertop was in the beginning of the Thrid Age the Kingdom of Arnor that was the Kingdom of Arigorns ancestors and the rest of the Dunadain so Frodo and Bilbo are actually every bit subjects of Arigorn as all the rest of the men of Gondor though he never treats them that way. Once he becomes King that Kingdom is also reestablished and the Hobbits are under their protection( as they always were)
The Borrow Downs are the Burial Mounds of the fallen of Arnor from their battles against Angmar. Before or possibly after the Witch King departed for Mordor or DolGuldor he left behind Raiths like himself who had also been created by him with morgal blades or that were corrupted by one of the many lesser rings of power. These were called the Barrow Wights that were Raiths but of much lesser power. He left them to posess the dead and inhibit and trap those passing through the Downs. Those Men of Arnor created magical blades designed to do one thing and one only. Raiths including both the Barrow Wights and the Nazgul were total slaves to Saurons will like chess pieces. They were held bound to that will, bound by the spells upon their rings even though it was Sauron who possessed those rings and they didn't wear them( this leads one to believe that tough he didn't have the one Sauron was using the other rings.) The Numenorean/Arnor swords were created to seperate the will from the human body and spirit underneath so they could then be killed. This is exactly what happens to the Whitch King
when Merry stabs him from behind and Eowin kills him. When they went through the Downs and were captured by the Wights and they call on Tom for help. He Rescues them and gives them the swords explaining they were special and what their origin was and what the Downs actually were. Though he didn't tell them why the swords were special. Even Frodos or Gandalfs Magical Elf blades could not do this.
On Weathertop when the Witch King was actually shocked and taken aback that one so small and seemingly insignificant resisted him and he was then further shocked by the appearance of the Blades of Arnor that he both recognized and understood what they were for. He also briefly recollected that his forces in Angmar had fought creatures such as this at the Battle of Fornost( Gandalf relays this story to Bilbo about his Took ancestor in the Hobbit film) and lost to them.( There were only a small contingent of Took Hobbits in that Battle but they did hold their own) So what's happening on Weathertop is foreshadowing for the Whitch King of his own demise and he suspects it.
Btw, I believe Cinema Sins actually takes a lot of their sins from fan recommendations. He’s not the one coming up with all of it.
damn how do i not remember gollum falling
10:46 CS didnt missed the idea and usefullness of the fires, yet you start to give an explanation like they questioned it. Sometimes they just point out fun or weird facts with their " sins " and in this case, simply comment that it must be an awful job camping out there day after day.
16:00 CS sins this because the knockout was long over due because of his incompetence, not the fact that he did it.
16:35 Gollom have survived torture and aging thanks to the ring yes, but I cant remember anything from previous movies that says his bones is that hardend to make it out in one piece after that fall. What we can see its a pretty long fall, and even after he disapears in the dark you can still hear his scream fading, assuming he falls even longer. Him surviving I can buy, but his bones should be broken/shattered to pieces, especially since they are on a mountain.
26:51 A shorter hobbit maybe buillt the house and therefore made the door smaller? If you compare the hobbits they seem to have pretty much the same heights, and even if it varies some, it makes zero sense to build a door smaller. Some mansions castles etc have doors up to 4-5 meters long that small ppl can open with ease, so a 20 cm shorter hobbit making a 20 cm shorter door is just not a good explanation. Not to mention the problem bigger guests will have and if he wants to sell it later on.
love your videos man. Hope you keep on making content in the future.
Are you excited for the Tolkien movie?
To be honest I’m not a huge biopic person, but I am kind of excited, though also a bit worried of course lol.
Oh my Cripes!! It's like this idiot failed to *HEAR* _The Circle of Life_ song, (Yes, he sinned The Lion King 1994 for BS reasons!) and wanted the movie to end with Simba's roar in the rain just before the dissolve to the foliage growing back & the birth of Kiara!!!
Well, in the Two Towers, Theoden says how Gondor didn't come to their aid and how the Westfold burnt because of it. Now, he has some right to ask why should they help Gondor when they didn't get any help. I get that Gondor gets hit the hardest and is constantly warring against Mordor because they are close but 200 men would've meant a lot to Rohan, at least as a moral support. Also, in the novies Denethor is a different man and his son died which drove him mad, so Theoden is similar to him cause he also lost his son but didn't despair in such a way. So, again, he is thinking why should I help someone who is lesser than me but didn't help me when I needed him to.
When the Westfold burnt, Theoden was still under Saruman's influence - and no one there at Meduseld even knew it had happened until that half-dead child arrived on a horse. Gondor didn't come to Rohan's aid because no-one asked.
Overall, this was a pretty fair debunking of Cinemasins. Other channels don't always go so thorough, and some can't avoid some cheap shots, but you're always giving as much leeway as possible.
I'd honestly not have been that generous, since many of the more popular complains start to get on my nerves, because they just never dry down and overstay their welcome.
I'm glad someone is doing this
I think what CS is trying to get at with the "Because of the whole plot of the Two Towers" in regards to Theoden is the fact that Gondor never came to Rohan's aid, even though Gondor didnt know about it most likely which I don't think he took into account (which doesn't surprise me). Great video btw!
The weird thing is that the movie (and this may only be in the extended edition) shows a conversation where Faramir and his right-hand guy are discussing Rohan’s situation, based on their “scouts.” But how would Theoden know that? That’s the real problem they should have raised.
+Tolkien Lore I totally forgot about that scene (I've only ever seen the EE of TT and RotK) so yeah that makes sense that he didn't talk about that instead.
one more sin and this guy would actually shed a tear out of anger
It's just a bit of fun.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable watch~
that CinemaSins narrator sounds so frustratingly glib, yet he knows jack shit. I think they do this on purpose to maximize views / people talking about their content.
Thanks for the video
That was Awesome lol! Hobbits 😢 on the shore. Made me 😆. Well done.....
This was so satisfying. Its always good seeing these smarmy know-it-alls being dismantled.
I hate that cinemasins is like an overly logical nerd that thinks he is smarter and better then everyone, he wants world to be the way he wants it to be and thinks that he is the only one who would think straight in a critical situation, overlooking that humans are not roborts. They are emotional creatures that dont know much and you might think that you would act in a certain situation in the best logical and smartest way, but would actually do pretty much the same. Because humans are not all powerfull, after all they are just mortal creatures that are scared of death.
I've got a question that seems to be a film plot hole that Cinema Sins didn't pick up. Why does Elrond not join Arwen and the other elves to depart Middle-Earth?
I’m not sure that’s really a plot hole. Lots of elves were still left so we could easily assume Elrond is just trying to get Arwen out early to keep her safe while he’s waiting to take a later ship.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation! I think what's ultimately throwing me is that the film depicts Arwen as extra vulnerable. Elrond tells Aragorn in Dunharrow that she's dying.
I get that the power of the elvish rings is diminishing, and that their lands are fading. (To me, Gandalf's fading ring Narya this could partly explain why he didn't do more at Battle of Pelennor Fields or vs the witch king in the film.) But otherwise, we don't see the elves themselves struggling as much as Arwen.
Going along with the film, is it fair to say Arwen essentially gave up her immortality when she gave Aragorn the Evenstar and insisted he keep it? Or is there another explanation? Thanks so much for taking the time to reply. I really appreciate your videos!
I’m not sure how to explain Arwen’s “vulnerability” from the perspective of the books (where at any rate such vulnerability is not suggested) unless she’s dying of grief. Elrond in the movie seems to suggest it has something to do with the evil spreading from Mordor but that’s just Jackson’s invention, so it seems a unique, ad hoc problem invented from whole cloth. Also the Elven Rings were not diminishing, even in the movies as far as I can tell. They only lose their power when the One is destroyed.
As for when Arwen gave up her immortality, the movie only really makes sense if she didn’t give it up till after she almost went to the Havens. It seems like only after she returns that “the life of the Eldar” leaves her, as Elrond says. But in the book I would think it would either be when she betrothed herself to Aragorn or when they actually wed.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Okay, thanks for that thorough and quick explanation! I was hoping I could simply explain away the Witch King's dominance of Gandalf via the fading rings. (I wish the duel had been more competitive.) I thought of that idea from a joke I heard Peter Jackson tell McKellen, that Gandalf had run out of batteries and all the stores were closed.
But I suppose it makes sense they don't diminish and fail until either Sauron wins or is destroyed.
Yeah the face-off between WK and Gandalf is one of my pet peeves about the movie. Post-resurrection Gandalf is really powerful, and while he admits to Denethor that he might be outmatches by WK, it’s by no means clear he thinks he would certainly lose.
I will say this: I didn’t watch LotR until the Extended Cut came out. So I only know the Extended Edition, as far as the movies are concerned. That being said, I did read the books and do like SOME of the liberties Jackson took to keep pace of a TRILOGY of books telling what is ultimately combined into a single story. The other thing is that Jackson made a faithful gesture to keep switching between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, and the rest of the Fellowship since, in the book, you basically split the entire story in half where one half focuses on Frodo’s side, while the other half focuses on the other members’ side. It probably wasn’t easy trying to keep the scenes straight, which was also done in the animated movies.
Beyond all that, the only book I didn’t read was the Silmarillion, among other outside stories, so as much as I loved the Wolf’s head, learning of its reference to an ACTUAL werewolf is nice to know! Makes that scene all the more impactful... metaphorically speaking.
Am the only one who truly believes that each scene is over done? By cinema sins? Or is it just me? 🤨🤨🤨
Love the videos! Please do star wats next
Sorry, this channel is all Tolkien all the time. But there is a channel out there dedicated to Debunking CinemaSins. Can’t remember the name off hand though....
Because Star Wars was written by Tolkien?
Tolkien Lore Shaun is a good channel for ripping into Cinemasins. I believe there’s another channel if one searches “everything wrong with everything wrong with”.
The witch cling 😹
Yeah you gotta make a hole other movie to explain the Hobbits rebellion against Saruman and how Sam got to be a hero for all Hobbits and Mayor but then again he gets murdered WAY before he actually did. And btw it was kind of bs that Gandalf didn't use the light to repel the Nazgul cause in the Two Towers we fucking fights the "fire demon" with a sword while using it as a source of its power as well and let's remember that by then he was still Gandalf the grey
you look like Teo
Who?
ruclips.net/channel/UCDa8HbNrmkFhKKOeiB7JaRw
Count Gustav I see what you mean lol.
Loooooved this video. The Cinema Sins videos triggered me something bad.
CinemaSins is a knob.
thanks and praise to God amen, God bless and save you.
Maybe I'm being the devil's advocate here, but you can't blame cinema sins for bashing some aspects of the trilogy. 80% of your debunking from your 3-episode series is based on lore from the books and cinema sins don't have to know the books. They analyze the movies as they are. If something is "dumb' or seems like a plot hole - they point it out. You can't defend the movies hiding behind the shield of the book trilogy all the time. If they wanted to criticise the books, they would criticise the books.
I reference the books when pertinent, but my critique of CinemaSins is at their own level of analysis-viewing the movie as a movie in isolation.
it's a joke...it's meant to portray how a nitpicky veiwer would reveiw a movie
People debunking cinema sins is sad, you guys really don’t get it or doesn’t have humor
7:56 You mean the inner city that's built straight up? If the orcs have good enough catapults, that city is gone.
But they don’t. That’s kinda the point. ;)
Could catapults even shoot that high? I'm no expert on medieval siege weaponry, but I'm pretty sure that even the best catapults possible couldn't do it. To launch a projectile that high, you'd need a rocket or something.
You take yourself - and an ENTERTAINING critique of an ENTERTAINMENT film - wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too seriously.
You don't take yourself - and a serious critique of a entertaining critique (which some take SERIOUSLY) of an entertainment film (which many take _very_ SERIOUSLY) - seriously enough.
Bitofinger Alastname: Not gonna tolerate language like that (deleted your comment). If you want to make a constructive criticism go ahead, but insulting expletives are going too far.
If you said something mean, I didn't get to read it. I meant you no offense, just an entertaining critique.
CinemaSins is literally there for us to have a laugh and those of us with a sense of humor both laugh AND STILL APPRECIATE THE MOVIE. this video is pathetic
If cinemasins has annoyed you enough to make a video countering their points then they've done their jobs. Look, they themselves admit that they don't necessarily care about accuracy. It's humor. They nitpick for the sake of comedy. You're taking them way too seriously. In many videos they'll sin a pretty actress simply because she isn't doing a lap dance. Just watch the videos for their comedic value because they're the first to tell you that the sins don't matter.
Then they shouldn’t use obvious falsehoods in their criticisms. That’s not funny. Their humor defense is pure rationalization. Yes they’re going for humor but they’re also clearly trying to point out real inaccuracies.
Pretty sure Cinema Sins stuff is just for laughs. Should probably get a sense of humour.
It’s not “just” for laughs, since some of their criticisms are perfectly good, but regardless, there’s not much humor in an outright fabrication.
Tolkien Lore They're totally made for laughs. Sorry. Otherwise they wouldn't be presented in a humorous manner.
Of course it’s meant to be humorous. I didn’t disagree with that. I said it wasn’t JUST for laughs.
Those who complain about this video are doing exactly what they are complaining about. We are allowed to laugh at what we perceive as mistakes. We are also allowed to correct mistakes that others make. Discussion is good. I enjoyed this video, though it is not perfect. I also enjoy cinemasins, though it is not perfect.
Cinema sins: let's make a humoristic retaliation of "sins" from a movie
This guy: Everything is explained in the book and the extended version and I'll take everything you say WAY too seriously. ThIs MoViE Is PeRfEct!!1!1
I get that you love LOTR, and that is why you are very defensive. Cinemasins is very tongue in cheek with very few valid criticisms. And you can't point to the books everytime there is a problem in the movies, they should stand alone.
I enjoyed some of the points you made and I learned something about the books. But your sensitiveness and not willing to concede any points when cinemasins makes a valid point is very off putting.
I concede several points, and they refer to the books to sin the movie.
@@TolkienLorePodcast after you concede the point about the bread crumbs, you said they finally got one and you called them nerds with nothing better to do. I am not sure if that was dig at yourself as well as I am sure you spend a lot of time thinking about LOTR, nothing wrong with that.
Fair enough about them bringing up the books, but usually they say if the explanation is in the book and not in the movie then it doesn't count.
Anyways, I never read the books so it was nice to get some context and it makes the movie more enjoyable.
@@JagdeepSingh-bs3cw What specific points do you think are valid that he said were invalid?
They're trying to be humorous. Fail.
Their jokes are the fail.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Exactly.
The books. Do. Not. Matter.
Except they refer to book material multiple times.
Also in case of any adaption yes, the source material is important since realistically a movie adaption is meant for the fans first the movie going public second, you want it to make sense to the general public but it isn't a plot hole to include information that people who have read the source material will understand and the general audience does not. Also I know this is a two month old comment but the books don't matter defense has always irked me about CS, cause that's just an excuse to be wrong as far as I am concerned
CinemaSins is comedy. Don't get that?
It’s not funny if there’s no truth to it.
I have too say, when you make a movie, you have too make it make sense for the people who didn't read the books. Its not right too say " well its explained in the book" or "it's explained in the extended edition.
Its CinemaSins, for general audience not nerds.
Also the 3 LOTR films have lower sin counts then almost every other movie.
CinemaSins took it easy on lotr and I could find many other sins, they are wonderful films but not masterpieces
An odd defense considering they make references that only the nerds would get.
@@TolkienLorePodcast And??? my point is that movies are responsible too make the movie make sense for the non nerds who dont know the source material. And cinemasins doesnt take itself too seriously, which is a trait we all need...
I don't like how snarky you are. I did not know a lot of the things that you claim were pretty obvious. And in all fairness, I actually like Cinemasins, even though I know a lot of the stuff they sin are stupid. Heck, even they know it. That's the point. It is a kind of humor that is not really for everyone.
You like CinemaSins because they’re intentionally stupid, but you don’t like how snarky I am? To each his own, I guess.
Timothy Ahene cinemasins snark is approved by you, but when they get served their own dinner, it's time to cry foul?
CinemaSins entire shtick is being a snarky asshole and he's often a complete moron in his attempts at actual criticism.
So whining about someone giving an asshole a taste of his own medicine, and then saying "well you just don't understand the comedy" just makes you a defensive nut-hugger. It's fine to enjoy whatever mindless RUclips entertainment you like, but don't be a whiny bitch when someone like Tolkien Lore steps up against C.S.'s shitty-jokey-joke "criticism" with a factually informed response.
How can you get this mad at a video which sole purpose is to be entertaining? Y'all acting like they insulted your ancestors or something.
Chill. It's a good laugh and nothing else nerds :'D
My reaction watching this video.
"BORING!"
"DON'T CARE!"
And "OH MY GOD, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A JOKE IS?!"
I don't even like cinema sins, but at least their older videos can be entertaining. Yours are just a boring slog to hit through. Please work on your presentation and delivery because this is just unbearable to listen to.
If you don’t care, this really isn’t the video for you. And ”unbearable to listen to” really applies to Cinemasins Jeremy too.
i think the biggest thing all you nerds are forgetting... Is that CinemaSin's is just comedy.
The line between their comedy and their real criticism is invisible.