Tolkien specifically said that Sauron had a physical form now. Gollum saw it. Gollum said that Sauron only had 4 fingers on the one hand, "Yes, He has only four fingers on the Black Hand, but they are enough." As for Aragorn never doing anything bad in the movies, let me remind you that Aragorn in the movie chopped the head off an envoy. That's bad. (Though I may be one of the few to recognize that amongst all the cheers.) As Tolkien had the Mouth of Sauron say, "I am a herald and an ambassador, and may not be assailed." And Gandalf replies, "You have naught to fear from us, until your errand is done." No head chopping.
Yeah, that infuriated me almost as much as Denethor's stupid, clownish death. You do NOT attack an ambassador - it's a sacred obligation. Aragorn would never have done such a thing.
You left off the portrayal of the Ents, who were very aware of Sauman's doings and had begun to contemplate moving against him. Merry and Pippin were not there to make him understand what Saruman was doing as they were there to be the catalyst that drove the typically melancholy Ents into atypical hasty activity.
Faramir's only failing, IIRC, is the capture of Gollum against Frodo's wishes, which was motivated by a concern for security vice a character failing. The degeneration of Faramir by Jackson is one of the two most egregious deviations from the books in my estimation (the other is the break between Sam and Frodo on the way to Shelob's lair).
Regarding Sauron's physical form, Gollum even mentions that "He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand", which Gollum had seen when he was in captivity
Cirdan has been around since 1100 YT, he is the oldest elf in Middle Earth as far as we know. Oh, and Eomer has most of the invented arguably male human-supremacist lines about "War is the province men" and how Merry will cut and run at the first sign of danger, all attitudes Tolkien never gave him (only for Eomer to be proved wrong anyway). Eomer, Faramir, Denethor...Peter Jackson's secondary male characters were all done a little dirty, IMO. (And other mentioned Aragorn murdering the Mouth of Sauron in the extended edition, which was a no-no in medieval politics. It happened, but it was always seen as bad irl and that did not happen in the books.) Movie Faramir I just don't understand. He saw Frodo basically offer the ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath, then saw Frodo pull his sword on Sam for stopping him...then minutes later Faramir decides to trust Frodo to take the Ring into Mordor? I think Jackson-Faramir was secretly brainwashed and working for Sauron, that's my headcanon to explain Osgiliath.)
I have a question that has stumped me for forever. I've read lotr at least once a year since I was 12, so more than 30 times. And I can't figure out how Gollum got into Moria. Help? He didn't sneak in past the watcher in the water, but why would he have entered from the other end?
@@TolkienLorePodcast but he was followif the company within moria. So he must have entered moria from the eastern side, perhaps intending to pass through the West gate in search of Baggins?
@@TolkienLorePodcast yeah, I figured it out in the end. So Gollum wasn't in Moria looking for the One Ring so much as he was hiding out and just got....lucky when the Fellowship was forced to pass through the Hollin Gate. Also, I did a search and the words "Gondor Has No King" do not appear anywhere in the text of the novel. I think that was another of your wonderful videos that tell me stuff I already know so I feel like I have friends lol.
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
In the prologue, the Forging of the Rings of Power/The War of the Elves and Sauron gets combined with the War of the Last Alliance. Those events were 1600 or more years apart.
Don't think the movie was implying they were happening together, just running through the backstory for the saga for newbies in a concise manner. Can't have your prologue going for 40+ minutes!
you say you can't think of anybody mentioned as having a beard? gandalf? every dwarf? and by the way beards are frequently mentioned in blessings and curses: "may your beard grow ever longer" or "may your beard never wither, and the shadow of Gandalf's beard is often mentioned as wagging in the firelight
Saruman literally tells Gandalf his plan: If we can't get the ring for ourselves(Well "myself in Saruman's case), Sauron will win and cannot be stopped, so best to feign joining him, lay low, and council him from the shadow and maybe that way diminish the suffering. So basically, let Sauron kill all he wants, take control, and meanwhile survive while acting like you have joined his side. Saruman was trying to play it both ways. Sauron of course would not have trusted Saruman, but he was a great tool to block Rohan.
Yeah weirdly Saruman always gave me this Count Dooku vibes, maybe it's because the same actor. But just like Dooku in Star Wars, he never felt like a full Sith/full follower of Morgoth/sauron. In the movies therefore Saruman is much more likeable, because there isn't the scouring of the shire.
You are right about these discrepancies between the movies and Tolkien's works. I am especially peeved by the way Jackson allows Gandalf to get into all sorts of serious trouble and to lose his staff more than once. He fails to understand the full import of what a wizard is, even though he has the characters actually say "Maiar" more than once. The scene in which Gandalf supposedly faces Sauron in Dol Goldur and the scene on the walls of Minas Tirith where Gandalf supposedly faces Angmar are the worst examples of Jackson needing to leave his fingerprints all over the story. Gandalf didn't engage in any "Harry Potter-esque" duel with Saruman either. Tolkien was more subtle--and therefore much more effective--in the way the wizards opposed each other and how Gandalf fared in dealing with the Necromancer and with Angmar. Jackson did so much right--especially in the vision of Middle Earth and its depth through every scene and costume, and even in the choice of actors for those immortal characters. But this only made his arbitrary changes to the plotline the more irritating. I have to say I'm happy to know the Tolkien estate has veto power over the new Amazon series. Keep up the good work! Namarie.
@@Serai3 Not to mention that the Ring was in Frodo's pocket during the trip to Rivendell, but he wakes up with it already on a chain around his neck. Who dared to take it from him, and mount it on a chain? I don't think they ever showed a clasp, so someone forged the last link....
@@davidkulmaczewski4911 Yeah, a chain Frodo kept SNAPPING every time he wanted to take the Ring out! Who was out there to repair the damn chain every few days?? :D
There's a dead leaf on a tree that the Hobbits brush past during a short montage in Rivendell. It's *very* obvious. Rivendell was protected by a Ring of Power, and this just seems like a glaring oversight....
Also, when is Theoden evil? He gets his mind poisoned by Saruman in the movies, but that's not because Theoden desires Saruman's power or something--it's because Saruman desires Theoden's land (as part of an empire-building project to challenge Sauron's power. So really it's the Maiar who above all desire power, with the one good exception being Gandalf the Running-Out-Of-Toner.) Hama isn't power-hungry. He's loyal to the King. Very minor character, but whatever.
comparing Bilbo's aging to Golum's aging doesn't really work even in the books... Gollum didn't have the ring for about 77 years, he would be quite old for a hobbit even if he didn't age at all during the time that he had the ring Bilbo on the other hand, if he didn't age at all during the time that he had the ring, would be only about 70 when he left, even in the books, which is about middle-age for a hobbit so they both had to age somehow while having the ring and Gollum must be able to live way past the age of an ordinary hobbit even without the ring (33 when he got the ring + 500 years of slow aging + 77 years after) while Bilbo could live only to about the regular age of a hobbit (years before the ring + let's say 30 years for the 60 he had the ring + 20 years after he gave it to Frodo)
I believe it’s moreso once the ring itself is destroyed, dont quote me on that, but I think I read that somewhere. Bilbo is still around the same physical appearance 17 years later in Rivendell, and it’s not really until the end of RotK that he quickly ages. So I think the ring in a way binds a bearer to it after a certain amount of time, and once it was destroyed, that bind was broken. But like I said, don’t quote me on this.
It's part of the mania to recast classic stories in modern terms. We have no equivalent of the glamour of the Ring, because we have no Sauron to create it, so people grab onto the closest thing we have - drug addiction - and try to jam that onto the subtle, invading madness of the Ring. But the Ring's glamour comes directly from Sauron - it's his power of illusion, enchantment, poured into the Ring when he filled with the greater part of his power. That's why people are mesmerized, and why the Ring seems to be a living thing of its own - because it bloody well _is._
The big eye really annoyed me in the movies - it makes Sauron seem like Humpty Dumpty, There's a lot of conflict (internal and external) introduced in the films that has no place in the book, really just to suit cinematic convention, and in service of that a lot of the characters are weaker or otherwise worse than in the book. Denethor was really done a disservice, as was Faramir. We won't talk about Isildur, who gets character assassinated and seems to be portrayed as the last king of Gondor rather than the second High King of Arnor and Gondor. Poor Frodo got turned into Frodo Baggage, almost devoid of agency. Even Aragorn thuggishly decapitates the Mouth of Sauron (who is transformed into a freak rather than the deeply slimey and sinister middle management character in the book) - killing an envoy during parley would've been absolutely taboo and unworthy of an honourable figure, And yet these movies are still far, far better than what Amazon are concocting. I think of the movies as Tolkien with training wheels.
I agree with some things. When it comes to the Mouth of Sauron. Bookwise Aragorn could be able to use the ring if he wanted to. And that was the reason why Sauron feared him, not because he was the son of Isildur. But because if given enough time, Aragorn could use and destroy Sauron with the ring. That's also what Galadriel said. My take on it was, that the action of chopping off the head of the envoy. Would help Sauron see that Aragorn was trying to use the ring in an act of aggression and overconfidence. Which is part of using the ring. And given the fact that Aragorn wouldn't have had enough time to master the use of the ring, he came out of the gates in full force. In that way that scene worked for me. Frodo's depiction was ok for me, just like Denethor's. Sure it could've been more true to the story but that's fine. Faramir on the other hand was a personal letdown for me. He is one of the most pure characters in the book. The embodiment of charm, understanding and he understood very fast what was going on and he wasn't tempted by the ring at all. In the cinematic version Boromir is also a bit of a letdown. His only scenes are weird, clingy and not caring enough. In the extended version that is mended by a large part with his conversation with Sam and Frodo. I feel that most characters come off better in the extended versions and of course, those are the only ones i watch. Nothing in the movie really bothered me too much, sure some things were changed and some changes i accept. Because a book and a movie translate differently. You have no inner thoughts or monologues. The movies never took me out of the world with their changes and the heart of the story was always the same. It nailed the most important themes and there weren't any heavy lore changes that disrupted the movies. I just know that the series Amazon is making is going to be an abomination and the more i see, hear and read about it. The more i appreciate the books AND the PJ adaption.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Yeah, but the point is that, other than the THICK hair Tolkien said hobbits had on their feet, there was no need for prosthetics because hobbits didn't have big feet. Their feet were the same proportion as anyone else's - they just had all that hair and very tough soles. The feet really didn't make sense.
When I had watched the films I just assumed that the ring wasnt sure what to do with hobbits. Elves? Dwarves? Humans? All explicitely shown to be targets. Hobbits? Were they even remembered when the Ring was made? So idk. That was my idea when I saw it. Each Hobbit seen using it or around it acted differently, and changed differently. It didnt seem inconsistent to me because i thought it was on purpose XD
Gandalf said in the book that the Ring gave power according to the user's stature. Hobbits are small people with small lives, so they never acquire any great power from the Ring. Also, hobbits did not yet exist when the Ring was made, or at least there was no knowledge of them outside their own little tribes along the rivers.
Tolkien was explicit that the durability of the hobbits (CON +5 for RPG stats 😉), is why the ring stretches and thins hobbits rather than turning them. This is why Gollum lasts so long, because he is an older kind of hobbit, something that the movies actually got right.
@@TolkienLorePodcast don't worry too much dude. We all have words we learned by reading. I've done it a million times with many, many words. soupçon lol
You can find support for pronunciations of that word that use short and long a, short and long e, and short i - since he probably extrapolated from other words, such as Aegean, aerate and aerial, which all use "aye-eh" sounds in US pronunciation, his usage isn't too surprising. Regardless, to nitpick this is pathetic, whether you pronounce it pah-THEH-tick or puh-THEH-tick.
To the point of not following the books yeah but they’re still pretty good films on their own. The books are just much more better. So I personally had watched the films before reading the books and I thought they were great. But as soon as I read the books I saw all the missed opportunities that would have translated so much better if they were on film. Most of them are personal stylistic choices with Jackson and crew but I’m sympathetic to some things that he could not put in the film, if you think about it. I’ve always thought of what if it were a made into a mini series, then I think you could possibly follow the books more closely and tell the depth in the characters. But I don’t think that’ll happen ever🤷🏻♂️
Frodo was 50 years old in the book but really young "looking" in the movie. However, during the time between Bilbos birthday and starting the trip to Rivendel Frodo has the ring with him. Which could explain the reason Gandalf says "You look the same as always Frodo". 2, The Ring of Fire, is given to Gandalf from Gladriel 3, Theodan was very kind man. His concern for Merry to keep him safe and his peoples safety. Denathor is a scumbag the way he treats his youngest son. And he is only concerned about power. I think the Actor did a great job. In the book, Fairamer(sp) character doesnt have an arc and in The movie, you need the character to have an arc, thus the changes made by Jackson in the movie. Just the way I see it there are lots of differences, as you say; the time line is the biggie for sure, but again, thats the problem of adaptations from book to movie...look at Earagon....then maybe not. Love the actors hated the adaptation! Thanks- Pookie
Círdan is giving his ring to Gandalf with the words (more or less) "I foresee that great burdens will follow you on your path. I give you this ring to awake the fire within the people of Middle-Earth."
I'd disagree that Faramir lacks a story arc in the book. They key thing about Faramir is that he was never tempted to take the ring from Frodo. Faramirs story is about rising above a broken heart, which he did. He not only made the honorable choice where his brother did not, he also helped to heal Eowin after her heartbreak at not winning the heart of Aragorn. He was a hero despite his father, and the movie completely breaks the character.
@@ThatSockmonkey, I agree. I was very disturbed by Jackson's changes to various characters. Denethor was described by Gandalf as being a "terrible old man" to Pippin, but he is described as being a proud lord of men, and a man who is worthy of his position. He distrusts Gandalf, but recognizes the power that the wizard might bring to bear on the enemy and the wisdom of his council, even if he hates every word. We even see that Denethor is actually ready to fight to the death for his city, even as he despair of survival. It is only upon the fall of Faramir that Denethor collapses as a leader, and much of that may have to do with Sauron's ability to twist his vision via the palantír. Faramir was a good hearted man, who as the heir of a long lived race of men was likely the equivalent of a young man in his early 20s, and the same was true of Boromir. I agree with what you said, but I would go further and say that rather than the issue being only a broken heart and rather think that it is also the coming a age of an orphaned second son thrust to power just in time to turn it over. Eowyn was aldo treated more as a third wave feminist icon rather than the role Tolkien gave her. She was under no illusion that she was the equal of men in battle, rather she was consumed with bitter despair that she would outlive her family and be unable to do anything other than watch. If washing bedpans would have won the war, the Rohan would have had them. But it was not bedpans but swords needed, and she was determined to do shat she could. In fact, she goes through the battle with only one kill mentioned...granted it was tge single most significant kill in the battle, and she had help, but credit is still due her.
Tolkien specifically said that Sauron had a physical form now. Gollum saw it. Gollum said that Sauron only had 4 fingers on the one hand, "Yes, He has only four fingers on the Black Hand, but they are enough."
As for Aragorn never doing anything bad in the movies, let me remind you that Aragorn in the movie chopped the head off an envoy. That's bad. (Though I may be one of the few to recognize that amongst all the cheers.) As Tolkien had the Mouth of Sauron say, "I am a herald and an ambassador, and may not be assailed." And Gandalf replies, "You have naught to fear from us, until your errand is done." No head chopping.
Yeah, that infuriated me almost as much as Denethor's stupid, clownish death. You do NOT attack an ambassador - it's a sacred obligation. Aragorn would never have done such a thing.
You left off the portrayal of the Ents, who were very aware of Sauman's doings and had begun to contemplate moving against him. Merry and Pippin were not there to make him understand what Saruman was doing as they were there to be the catalyst that drove the typically melancholy Ents into atypical hasty activity.
Faramir's only failing, IIRC, is the capture of Gollum against Frodo's wishes, which was motivated by a concern for security vice a character failing. The degeneration of Faramir by Jackson is one of the two most egregious deviations from the books in my estimation (the other is the break between Sam and Frodo on the way to Shelob's lair).
Regarding Sauron's physical form, Gollum even mentions that "He has only four [fingers] on the Black Hand", which Gollum had seen when he was in captivity
I have always found it interesting that both Sauron and Saruman were once servants of Aulë. It's like they were destined to join forces.
'It was Isildur who cut off the finger of the Enemy.' 'Yes, He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough,' said Gollum shuddering.
Exactly.
Came to mention that
I was going mention that!!
Cirdan has been around since 1100 YT, he is the oldest elf in Middle Earth as far as we know. Oh, and Eomer has most of the invented arguably male human-supremacist lines about "War is the province men" and how Merry will cut and run at the first sign of danger, all attitudes Tolkien never gave him (only for Eomer to be proved wrong anyway). Eomer, Faramir, Denethor...Peter Jackson's secondary male characters were all done a little dirty, IMO. (And other mentioned Aragorn murdering the Mouth of Sauron in the extended edition, which was a no-no in medieval politics. It happened, but it was always seen as bad irl and that did not happen in the books.) Movie Faramir I just don't understand. He saw Frodo basically offer the ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath, then saw Frodo pull his sword on Sam for stopping him...then minutes later Faramir decides to trust Frodo to take the Ring into Mordor? I think Jackson-Faramir was secretly brainwashed and working for Sauron, that's my headcanon to explain Osgiliath.)
I have a question that has stumped me for forever. I've read lotr at least once a year since I was 12, so more than 30 times. And I can't figure out how Gollum got into Moria. Help?
He didn't sneak in past the watcher in the water, but why would he have entered from the other end?
He was already on the other end, having escaped from Mirkwood.
@@TolkienLorePodcast but he was followif the company within moria. So he must have entered moria from the eastern side, perhaps intending to pass through the West gate in search of Baggins?
The East gate was “the other end” I was referring to.
@@TolkienLorePodcast yeah, I figured it out in the end. So Gollum wasn't in Moria looking for the One Ring so much as he was hiding out and just got....lucky when the Fellowship was forced to pass through the Hollin Gate.
Also, I did a search and the words "Gondor Has No King" do not appear anywhere in the text of the novel. I think that was another of your wonderful videos that tell me stuff I already know so I feel like I have friends lol.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
Gunter Patee haha yeah i read the books too
In the prologue, the Forging of the Rings of Power/The War of the Elves and Sauron gets combined with the War of the Last Alliance. Those events were 1600 or more years apart.
Don't think the movie was implying they were happening together, just running through the backstory for the saga for newbies in a concise manner. Can't have your prologue going for 40+ minutes!
@@mikespearwood3914 I know why they did it and it is a change I'm fine with.
you say you can't think of anybody mentioned as having a beard? gandalf? every dwarf? and by the way beards are frequently mentioned in blessings and curses: "may your beard grow ever longer" or "may your beard never wither, and the shadow of Gandalf's beard is often mentioned as wagging in the firelight
I was referring to Men specifically.
13:01 you could have probably said ethnicities or cultures.
Power makes you know and as long as you are know and by the more you are remembered by your essence lives forever.
Harfoots are the other family of Hobbits. Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots.
+Java Monkey lol yeah, can't believe that one slipped my mind.
@@TolkienLorePodcast the Swimmers, the Strong Build, and the "weak" XD
HarFEET!
Saruman literally tells Gandalf his plan: If we can't get the ring for ourselves(Well "myself in Saruman's case), Sauron will win and cannot be stopped, so best to feign joining him, lay low, and council him from the shadow and maybe that way diminish the suffering.
So basically, let Sauron kill all he wants, take control, and meanwhile survive while acting like you have joined his side. Saruman was trying to play it both ways. Sauron of course would not have trusted Saruman, but he was a great tool to block Rohan.
Yeah weirdly Saruman always gave me this Count Dooku vibes, maybe it's because the same actor. But just like Dooku in Star Wars, he never felt like a full Sith/full follower of Morgoth/sauron. In the movies therefore Saruman is much more likeable, because there isn't the scouring of the shire.
@@FragLord I found it quite interesting that both similar characters were played by the same actor.
You are right about these discrepancies between the movies and Tolkien's works. I am especially peeved by the way Jackson allows Gandalf to get into all sorts of serious trouble and to lose his staff more than once. He fails to understand the full import of what a wizard is, even though he has the characters actually say "Maiar" more than once. The scene in which Gandalf supposedly faces Sauron in Dol Goldur and the scene on the walls of Minas Tirith where Gandalf supposedly faces Angmar are the worst examples of Jackson needing to leave his fingerprints all over the story. Gandalf didn't engage in any "Harry Potter-esque" duel with Saruman either. Tolkien was more subtle--and therefore much more effective--in the way the wizards opposed each other and how Gandalf fared in dealing with the Necromancer and with Angmar. Jackson did so much right--especially in the vision of Middle Earth and its depth through every scene and costume, and even in the choice of actors for those immortal characters. But this only made his arbitrary changes to the plotline the more irritating. I have to say I'm happy to know the Tolkien estate has veto power over the new Amazon series. Keep up the good work! Namarie.
Or 'casting Saruman's spirit out of Theoden', like it's some kind of exorcism. Yikes.
What about the way Frodo kept hauling the Ring out and waving it around? I found that difficult to swallow.
@@Serai3 Not to mention that the Ring was in Frodo's pocket during the trip to Rivendell, but he wakes up with it already on a chain around his neck. Who dared to take it from him, and mount it on a chain? I don't think they ever showed a clasp, so someone forged the last link....
@@davidkulmaczewski4911 Yeah, a chain Frodo kept SNAPPING every time he wanted to take the Ring out! Who was out there to repair the damn chain every few days?? :D
There's a dead leaf on a tree that the Hobbits brush past during a short montage in Rivendell. It's *very* obvious. Rivendell was protected by a Ring of Power, and this just seems like a glaring oversight....
I think it was a reference to the change of the seasons, but it probably could have been done a bit better.
@12:40 Well, Frodo is one hobbit who had a beard. Its name was Sam.
ICWYDT :D
Only two "men" with no scruples in the movies? What about Éowyn? :) Don't forget the ladies ...
Also, when is Theoden evil? He gets his mind poisoned by Saruman in the movies, but that's not because Theoden desires Saruman's power or something--it's because Saruman desires Theoden's land (as part of an empire-building project to challenge Sauron's power. So really it's the Maiar who above all desire power, with the one good exception being Gandalf the Running-Out-Of-Toner.)
Hama isn't power-hungry. He's loyal to the King. Very minor character, but whatever.
comparing Bilbo's aging to Golum's aging doesn't really work even in the books... Gollum didn't have the ring for about 77 years, he would be quite old for a hobbit even if he didn't age at all during the time that he had the ring
Bilbo on the other hand, if he didn't age at all during the time that he had the ring, would be only about 70 when he left, even in the books, which is about middle-age for a hobbit
so they both had to age somehow while having the ring and Gollum must be able to live way past the age of an ordinary hobbit even without the ring (33 when he got the ring + 500 years of slow aging + 77 years after)
while Bilbo could live only to about the regular age of a hobbit (years before the ring + let's say 30 years for the 60 he had the ring + 20 years after he gave it to Frodo)
I believe it’s moreso once the ring itself is destroyed, dont quote me on that, but I think I read that somewhere. Bilbo is still around the same physical appearance 17 years later in Rivendell, and it’s not really until the end of RotK that he quickly ages. So I think the ring in a way binds a bearer to it after a certain amount of time, and once it was destroyed, that bind was broken. But like I said, don’t quote me on this.
Another misconception is that the Ring turns you into a crazy crackhead.
It's part of the mania to recast classic stories in modern terms. We have no equivalent of the glamour of the Ring, because we have no Sauron to create it, so people grab onto the closest thing we have - drug addiction - and try to jam that onto the subtle, invading madness of the Ring. But the Ring's glamour comes directly from Sauron - it's his power of illusion, enchantment, poured into the Ring when he filled with the greater part of his power. That's why people are mesmerized, and why the Ring seems to be a living thing of its own - because it bloody well _is._
Seems about tight. Extreme addiction.
@@nosuchthing8 If you meant right then you're wrong
@@sikid4000 There is the cinematic universe and the book based universe
@@nosuchthing8 no shit. What's your point?
12:50 Maybe Tribes of Hobbits?
The big eye really annoyed me in the movies - it makes Sauron seem like Humpty Dumpty, There's a lot of conflict (internal and external) introduced in the films that has no place in the book, really just to suit cinematic convention, and in service of that a lot of the characters are weaker or otherwise worse than in the book. Denethor was really done a disservice, as was Faramir.
We won't talk about Isildur, who gets character assassinated and seems to be portrayed as the last king of Gondor rather than the second High King of Arnor and Gondor.
Poor Frodo got turned into Frodo Baggage, almost devoid of agency.
Even Aragorn thuggishly decapitates the Mouth of Sauron (who is transformed into a freak rather than the deeply slimey and sinister middle management character in the book) - killing an envoy during parley would've been absolutely taboo and unworthy of an honourable figure,
And yet these movies are still far, far better than what Amazon are concocting.
I think of the movies as Tolkien with training wheels.
I agree with some things.
When it comes to the Mouth of Sauron. Bookwise Aragorn could be able to use the ring if he wanted to. And that was the reason why Sauron feared him, not because he was the son of Isildur. But because if given enough time, Aragorn could use and destroy Sauron with the ring. That's also what Galadriel said. My take on it was, that the action of chopping off the head of the envoy. Would help Sauron see that Aragorn was trying to use the ring in an act of aggression and overconfidence. Which is part of using the ring. And given the fact that Aragorn wouldn't have had enough time to master the use of the ring, he came out of the gates in full force. In that way that scene worked for me.
Frodo's depiction was ok for me, just like Denethor's. Sure it could've been more true to the story but that's fine. Faramir on the other hand was a personal letdown for me. He is one of the most pure characters in the book. The embodiment of charm, understanding and he understood very fast what was going on and he wasn't tempted by the ring at all.
In the cinematic version Boromir is also a bit of a letdown. His only scenes are weird, clingy and not caring enough. In the extended version that is mended by a large part with his conversation with Sam and Frodo. I feel that most characters come off better in the extended versions and of course, those are the only ones i watch.
Nothing in the movie really bothered me too much, sure some things were changed and some changes i accept. Because a book and a movie translate differently. You have no inner thoughts or monologues. The movies never took me out of the world with their changes and the heart of the story was always the same. It nailed the most important themes and there weren't any heavy lore changes that disrupted the movies.
I just know that the series Amazon is making is going to be an abomination and the more i see, hear and read about it. The more i appreciate the books AND the PJ adaption.
The Witch King also mentions the Lidless Eye (capitalized!).
True. Sauron must buy up half the Visine in Middle Earth!
@@TolkienLorePodcast And the World's Biggest contact lens, according to "Family Guy..."
I'm pretty sure there's a few characters with beards. most of the dwarves have beards. there's actually a family of dwarves named the longBEARDS.
+nick bergman Not sure what your point is?
Hobbits did NOT HAVE BIG FEET. I was so disappointed when I saw PJ had picked up that Bakshi falsehood.
They wear no shoes for the soles are strong like leather and are covered in wooly hair. (Paraphrasing)
How that turned into giant feet I have no idea
In fairness to Jackson he had his Hobbit actors wearing prosthetics so their feet had to be at least a bit bigger.
@@TolkienLorePodcast they were some big wooly foot prosthetics lol
Also true lol
@@TolkienLorePodcast Yeah, but the point is that, other than the THICK hair Tolkien said hobbits had on their feet, there was no need for prosthetics because hobbits didn't have big feet. Their feet were the same proportion as anyone else's - they just had all that hair and very tough soles. The feet really didn't make sense.
When I had watched the films I just assumed that the ring wasnt sure what to do with hobbits. Elves? Dwarves? Humans? All explicitely shown to be targets. Hobbits? Were they even remembered when the Ring was made?
So idk. That was my idea when I saw it. Each Hobbit seen using it or around it acted differently, and changed differently. It didnt seem inconsistent to me because i thought it was on purpose XD
Gandalf said in the book that the Ring gave power according to the user's stature. Hobbits are small people with small lives, so they never acquire any great power from the Ring.
Also, hobbits did not yet exist when the Ring was made, or at least there was no knowledge of them outside their own little tribes along the rivers.
Tolkien was explicit that the durability of the hobbits (CON +5 for RPG stats 😉), is why the ring stretches and thins hobbits rather than turning them. This is why Gollum lasts so long, because he is an older kind of hobbit, something that the movies actually got right.
Are you pronouncing aesthetic "aye-es-thet-ick? It's "esˈTHedik"
Because I’m not actually sure how it’s pronounced lol.
@@TolkienLorePodcast don't worry too much dude. We all have words we learned by reading. I've done it a million times with many, many words. soupçon lol
You can find support for pronunciations of that word that use short and long a, short and long e, and short i - since he probably extrapolated from other words, such as Aegean, aerate and aerial, which all use "aye-eh" sounds in US pronunciation, his usage isn't too surprising. Regardless, to nitpick this is pathetic, whether you pronounce it pah-THEH-tick or puh-THEH-tick.
Barliman did nothing wrong in the films either.
Jackson's movies were IMO a travesty.
To the point of not following the books yeah but they’re still pretty good films on their own. The books are just much more better. So I personally had watched the films before reading the books and I thought they were great. But as soon as I read the books I saw all the missed opportunities that would have translated so much better if they were on film. Most of them are personal stylistic choices with Jackson and crew but I’m sympathetic to some things that he could not put in the film, if you think about it. I’ve always thought of what if it were a made into a mini series, then I think you could possibly follow the books more closely and tell the depth in the characters. But I don’t think that’ll happen ever🤷🏻♂️
Frodo was 50 years old in the book but really young "looking" in the movie. However, during the time between Bilbos birthday and starting the trip to Rivendel Frodo has the ring with him. Which could explain the reason Gandalf says "You look the same as always Frodo".
2, The Ring of Fire, is given to Gandalf from Gladriel
3, Theodan was very kind man. His concern for Merry to keep him safe and his peoples safety.
Denathor is a scumbag the way he treats his youngest son. And he is only concerned about power. I think the Actor did a great job.
In the book, Fairamer(sp) character doesnt have an arc and in The movie, you need the character to have an arc, thus the changes made by Jackson in the movie.
Just the way I see it there are lots of differences, as you say; the time line is the biggie for sure, but again, thats the problem of adaptations from book to movie...look at Earagon....then maybe not. Love the actors hated the adaptation!
Thanks- Pookie
Correction, Gandalf got the ring of fire from Cirdan the Shipwright.
Círdan is giving his ring to Gandalf with the words (more or less) "I foresee that great burdens will follow you on your path. I give you this ring to awake the fire within the people of Middle-Earth."
@@raimat66 we see his greatest use during the battle of Minas Tirith :)
I'd disagree that Faramir lacks a story arc in the book. They key thing about Faramir is that he was never tempted to take the ring from Frodo. Faramirs story is about rising above a broken heart, which he did. He not only made the honorable choice where his brother did not, he also helped to heal Eowin after her heartbreak at not winning the heart of Aragorn. He was a hero despite his father, and the movie completely breaks the character.
@@ThatSockmonkey, I agree. I was very disturbed by Jackson's changes to various characters.
Denethor was described by Gandalf as being a "terrible old man" to Pippin, but he is described as being a proud lord of men, and a man who is worthy of his position. He distrusts Gandalf, but recognizes the power that the wizard might bring to bear on the enemy and the wisdom of his council, even if he hates every word. We even see that Denethor is actually ready to fight to the death for his city, even as he despair of survival. It is only upon the fall of Faramir that Denethor collapses as a leader, and much of that may have to do with Sauron's ability to twist his vision via the palantír.
Faramir was a good hearted man, who as the heir of a long lived race of men was likely the equivalent of a young man in his early 20s, and the same was true of Boromir. I agree with what you said, but I would go further and say that rather than the issue being only a broken heart and rather think that it is also the coming a age of an orphaned second son thrust to power just in time to turn it over.
Eowyn was aldo treated more as a third wave feminist icon rather than the role Tolkien gave her. She was under no illusion that she was the equal of men in battle, rather she was consumed with bitter despair that she would outlive her family and be unable to do anything other than watch. If washing bedpans would have won the war, the Rohan would have had them. But it was not bedpans but swords needed, and she was determined to do shat she could. In fact, she goes through the battle with only one kill mentioned...granted it was tge single most significant kill in the battle, and she had help, but credit is still due her.