I did not like the extended version's depiction of the orcs at all. They went from being feral pack animals barely obedient to the will of their masters to WW1 british infantry. A few scenes worked well, but the less they talked, the better.
Frodo also does not sell the house, he actually gives away Bilbo's things as per his "will" and then leaves, leaving his only relatives the Sackville Bagginses as the heirs of Bag End. When he returns Lotho is dead and Lobelia is shattered by this, leaving the house in Frodo's hands and dies in a year.
@@JacquelineMoleski don't forget how Freddy beat the army of gollum. Wich also wasn't in the movie. At the battle of ballszehard Freddy sadly died with a mace to the nuts.
@John M accidentally falling into which cart? I don't follow. Do you mean running into them with all the veg in the corn field, which I think was more to miss out the long time gap, house move, farmer maggot ect. I know the long trip to the new house, moving all his furniture in, the baths, Fatty Bolger and the conspiracy, and Fatty to scared to leave and dare not go into the old forest so stays behind and wears Frodo's clothes to make it look like he is home, lol bad mistake as he nearly gets killed by the ringwraiths
The Extended Edition (believe it or not) is how I first watched the film trilogy, and I how that line from Pippin is also where Fellowship's Extended edition Disc 1 ends. It's perfect timing.
Except that Tom saves the hobbits from the wight, which is where Merry gets the blade that he uses on the Nazgul king. Without that blade, the king would not have been destroyed. So, indirectly, Tom plays an important role.
Actually in a letter JRRT said that the character that expresses him best is Faramir, especially as Faramir's reaction to the Ring is how Tolkien believes he'd react to it.
Tom Bombadil is so badass that when he puts the ring on when Frodo comes to visit him, the ring has no effect over him, no invisibility, no greed, nothing. Thats how OP Tom is. Tom Bombadil could moonwalk into Mordor, sneeze and knock over the Eye of Sauron, and take a 3 point shot with the ring into the fire of Mount Doom in about 30 minutes flat if he really wanted too. Hell even Gandalf says how Tom could take the ring but he'd probably lose it cause he does not even care.
OP but totally flaky. At some point in the books (in Rivendell, I think?) Frodo suggests giving Tom the ring but Gandalf says, in so many words, Tom would never comprehend its importance and he'd just lose it or something.
very mad guy It's more that he's so old and lived through so much, that the change doesn't really affect him. He's perfectly content taking care of his own turf and nothing more.
In the books Frodo and Sam don't just bump into Pippin and Merry. Pippin actually leaves with them from the start, and they purposefully meet up with Merry outside of Buckland.
@Janis1526 In the movies it is actually 20 years as well, they just do a really bad job of showing it. By the time they arrive in Rivendell, Bilbo has already aged a great deal in the movies. Getting rid of the ring doesn't make you look like your actual age, it just means you will begin aging again, albeit slowly. The ring is supposed to extend your life. So if you get the ring at age 50, you will stay looking age 50 until you get rid of the ring, and then slowly continue aging from there. So the fact that Bilbo had aged so much at Rivendell really shows how long it had been.
You missed the Part about Putting on the Ring. In the Film, Gandalf seemed surprised and unaware In the Book, Gandalf was in on it, however, he added fireworks to distract everyone to make it less obvious what happened.
Doesn't Bilbo call Gandalf an "interferey old busy body" for shooting off the fireworks and also Bilbo saying the fireworks scared him because he didn't expect them?
9:40 I haven't read the books in a few years, so don't quote me, but i remember that the Elves in Lothlorien blindfolded Gimli, as he was a Dwarf. Frodo then blindfolds himeself, and the rest of the Fellowship then follows, blindfolding themselves as well, to make Gimli feel better.
No. It was better the way they did it. The short, abridged versions that felt like movies were realeased in theaters. The more lenghty ones, that add a lot of filler and break pacing are on Bluray for fans to enjoy.
I honestly think Return of the King is the only worthwhile extended edition to watch since most of its scenes tie up loose ends and actually have importance, the other two break the pacing for me and feel like filler
The explaining of Aragorn on the way to helms deep was also cut out and was important. It was never mentioned, that Aragorn is like 90 years old. Before i red the books, i thought he was like 40 or so, thinking he just would have a long live thanks to his blood.
If you look at a map of Middle Earth, you’d realize just how impossible it would be for the main characters to be getting to their destinations as fast as they do in the movie.
Joe King there’s more inconsistencies between directions and the map in two towers. The Uruks turn north east to go to Isengard when they are traveling from Amen Hen which is north east of Isengard. Also, Tree Beard tells Mary and Pipin that he’ll take them to the western edge of the forest to go south to their home. The western edge of the forest is on the edge of the Misty mountains, and the shire is a good bit north of Fangorn anyway.
Me (being an absolute Tolkien-nerd) am fine with Peter Jackson's adaptation of the story. In fact, I love it. I just wish Frodo had killed at least ONE orc in each movie and that Tom Bombadil was in the first.
I am so glad they got rid of Tom Bombadil, He was a complete waste of time! TBF Fellowship of the Ring is not a great novel, it's so slow, half of it is useless extras that are completely unnecessary to the story and when it finally starts getting somewhere it ends. The film however is an absolute masterpiece! Two Towers was a much better book and the film for me was not quite to Fellowship's standard while Return of the King pretty much suffers the same problem in the movie that it does in the book - The ending is such an anti-climax {and the film has another problem too, it completely removes the Scouring of the Shire!}. Fellowship Book 6/10, Film 10/10 Two Towers Book 10/10, Film 9/10 Return of the King Book 5/10, Film 8/10 On the whole, I can't complain too much about the 3 films as they do everything else so well - It's just RotK's ending really can't be helped, I'm not gonna blame the film too heavily for something that was a major problem with the book. It's pretty annoying though that it was RotK that got all the awards that Hollywood had failed to give the superior films!
Francis Wright I agree with the Return of the King. Why would you remove the battle that actually ENDED the War of the Ring and I think Tolkien had made Book Six too boring. I mean, after the chapter Mount Doom I kinda zoned out until I reached the Scouring of the Shire.
Yeah, it's strange that the movie kept all the messing about and back and forth after Mt Doom but removed the scouring of the shire - WHY!?! But the biggest problem with RotK {Book and Movie but Book worse} is that the denouement at Mt Doom is just so Anti-climactic after a 2 and a 3rd book {what 1000 pages?} set-up and journey to this point! I've been told over and over again that Sword of Shannara is an LotR rip-off, Sword of Shannara is what LotR SHOULD HAVE BEEN! Sword of Shannara is better in literally every way! And I'm so glad that almost 30 years ago at the age of 12 years old and in WH Smith's in Bowness on Windermere looking for the Silmarillion I was given the amazing advice by another customer to buy this instead! Oh and if you want to see an atrocious adaptation you only have to look for MTV's travesty that was The Shannara Chronicles season 1 {I can't believe they're actually making a season 2 but there's no chance of me watching it because it has absolutely b'gger all to do with the Books!}!
Francis Wright the ending rotk was already seemed never ending after 3 hrs of film, adding that chapter would be stupid. that chapter is removed in every adaptation as every producer wanted to give a happy straight forward ending.
Plus I suppose it made sense not to do it seeing as how in the Extended Edition Saruman died in Isengard. Yeah, Jackson had probably made it like that so Saruman couldn't go conquering the Shire. Clever move, Peter.
I think it's worth mentioning some character differences. Sauruman was drastically different. In the movies he joins Sauron because he believes Sauron is too powerful to be defeated. In the book he has an alliance with Sauron, but with the intention of obtaining the ring of power for himself. He doesn't truly have an allegiance to Sauron even lying to black riders in the book about the whereabouts of the ring so he can get the ring before. Second big character difference is the Balrog. Not really to what the character does, but the look and design is completely different. The book described the Balrog as more humanoid ajdbomly slightly taller than a regular man, while the movie has it be a giant demon looking beast.
I think Saruman actually secretly desired the ring for himself but tried to disguise it by joining with Sauron. He asked the Uruk-hai to bring the ring-bearer “unspoiled” to him at Isengard. He wasn’t just going to get it and then say, “Ok Sauron. Like I promised, here it is.”
One change that I wish they hadn't made in the films: Frodo has nothing do with the decision to go through the mines in the book, and Gimli does not think there will be a party. Gimli wants to go because he wants to know what happened to the dwarves there, and Gandalf and Aragorn have a debate about whether Caradhas or Moria is more deadly, with Aragorn eventually winning out over Gandalf's objections. The movie sacrifices a deep feeling of dread and desperation in exchange for some cheap dramatic irony.
he says that about whether to go to Minas Tirith or to Mordor. In the Book they are not sure of what route to take, in the movie its clear that they will ALL go strait to Mordor. In the Book Aragorn plans to pick Sam, Gimili and himself to go Mordor while Boromir, Legolas and the Hobbits go to Minas Tirith. This is why Frodo goes off by himself in Fellowship, to decide what course to take.
He actually says it in both places. For Caradhras/Moria, Frodo asks them to wait until dawn to decide after the first assault failed, as Gandalf's arguments for Moria were not being helped by the darkness. Then, the Wargs attack, and the decision is made for them. Moria then only takes a day to get to. At Parth Galen, Frodo asks for an hour to decide his path (though as Sam got it, he knew his course, and only had to "screw himself up" to go East.) Then Boromir seeks him out, attacks him, recovers by virtue of being a clutz, and the Fellowship is broken)
A bigger change, is how Merry, Pippin and Gimli are generally portrayed. they are (at least in this film but also later) just there for comedic relief. Never do we in the movie know that Merry and Pippin are close friends of Frodo, and that Pippin helped Sam and Frodo move. Gimli as a dwarf is a noble, modest being that has a strong will and can work out for whole days. This is a trait that made him the only one being able to fight of the spell Gandalf put on them in the Forest of Fangorn and attack (though the axe just bounced off). Which during the running sequence at the start of The Two Towers when we see Gimli stop and start panting does not make any sense. And Legolas kinda seems to have a power upgrade in the movies. He never runs of out arrows and gets to do cool things like skating on a shield. I am not saying he is not cool in the books, but he seems kind of overpowered in a Mary Sue style in the films
This video seems to focus primarily on pacing, but there were pretty significant character differences not mentioned here. Merry in the books is one of the smartest characters. He knows all about the ring before even Frodo does (Sam has been his spy watching Bilbo with the ring), and chooses to get involved because he knows the danger the ring represents to Frodo. When it comes to Aragorn and Gandalf - they are much closer to equals in the books. In fact it is Aragorn to advises against entering Moria, as he is suspicious of the rumors of danger of the mines. Oh, and the Balrog is afraid of Boromir's horn. Even the Balrog knows of the power that Gondor once represented, and the horn of Gondor stops him dead in his tracks...for a time. Neither Aragorn nor Boromir are a bit afraid of the Balrog either, both are willing to take it on until drawn away by the others.
the Balrog pauses at the loud, brash sound of the horn but it doesn't represent Gondor being powerful, it announces Boromir and Aragorn arriving. This is a beast that destroyed Gondolin and fought alongside Sauron's master- a mere horn won't scare it.
LMAO, Balrog is a fucking Maia. He doesn't fear no man's horn. And Merry is not smart in books. He's smarter than Pippin but still irresponsible compared to Sam and Frodo.
In the film the terrible weather on the mountain Kahrudruz (I'm certain that I've spelt that wrong) is clearly Saruman, but the book it's left ambiguous as to whether the storm is "A contrivance of the Enemy" or just the mountain itself, from what I remember they have quite a long discussion about who, or what is doing this until Merry (I think) says that it doesn't matter who it is, but it's attacking them.
Caradhas is the cruel mountain, but it is likely not Saruman that is doing this as he has not seen them at this point. This is the point in the story where they cannot go the way Bilbo did, and turn away from that path.
@@David-gj9qr I usually would be inclined to agree with you. But the point of this video is to compare the book and the film, they should have an intimate knowledge with the source material if they're claiming to compare the two.
I doubt you will see this but didnt Saruman actually help the mountain fall before moriah? I swear I remember reading that there were voices in the wind.
One small detail that I like is that in the book, when Bilbo vanishes at the party, Gandalf creates a flash of light where he stands to give the people an "explanation" for his disappearance.
Comparing the book and movie versions of LotR to me highlights how important the maker's intent can be on how a story plays out. P.J. made a stunning, emotional journey full of fantastical people, places and things, and all of it with a sense of grandiose and cinematic bravado. It is an experience largely steeped in the footprints of the epic adventure film. The books, on the other hand are steeped in something that isn't even a novel. Tolkien's books, in craft and execution, have much more in common with say Beowulf or the Illiad than with something like the Narnia Chronicles or Harry Potter. It actually felt fruitful to me to see that the LotR books aren't meandering because Tolkien was inept at novel writing, but rather because he emulated a literary style that ceased in use for milennia before the modern conception of a "novel" was even a thing. The Illiad, in particular, made me feel this way. Just like LotR it's full of endless digressions about people around the "main plot", which makes the pacing of the work seem increadibly slow compared to the modern novel.
One big difference they forgot: In the book, Sam is with Frodo during the mirror segment with Galadriel. It is Sam who sees the visions of the Shire, as well as a visual that we later would regonize as the stairs to Cirith Ungol, while Frodo sees who he thinks is Saruman (but is probably Gandalf the white) and the Eye of Sauron. The movie only has Frodo look into the mirror, removes the visuals hinting at later events, and replaces them with stuff ment to homage the Scouring of the Shire, which never made it to film.
With the Peter Jackson movies you aren't watching the LOTR, in any way at all. It is somewhat related to the books, but he absolutely massacred the intent and the meaning of the books by his whimsical adaptation.
@@RustyDust101 *But he absolutely massacred the intent of bla bla bla* People who knows about or how to differentiate both mediums (film and book) won't say something like this against FOTR, even Simon Tolkien himself (Tolkien's grandson) said that FOTR is a good adaptation. The Two Towers? I can understand. Return of the King? The Army of the Dead, the rest are okay at best.
Just scrolled through to see if someone else had pointed this out! Well done - nice to see someone who has read the books and remembers what is in them.
The whole part that Tolkien opens with where he gives the history about hobbits (concerning hobbits) is actually in the extended edition right after the movie covers sauron's defeat and before frodo's in the woods waiting for Gandalf. The lack of that one scene pains me everytime I watch the theatrical, it's just so good at countering the battle intensity of the first 5 minutes and sets a great tone
Love the book for its world building and love the film for its coherent narrative. They're both excellent for surprisingly very different reasons. My friends couldn't get into the book sadly because most of the story was VERY expository. JRR Tolkien wanted Middle Earth to live and breathe. I think Peter Jackson understood that, and that's why I'll never understand why many fans of the book could ask more from him in a single movie.
When a book gets a litteral cult folllowing, it's bound to be ferociously defended by Ayatollahs... "YOU ARE NOT ADAPTING EVERY SINGLE LINE AND WORD IN THE CORRECT ORDER! YOU SHALL BURN AT THE STAKE, HERETIC!!!"
+sakor88 Thanks for replying respectfully. I would say it's not a strawman as this comment was not referring to you or anybody with a similar opinion to yourself. My comments reflect the community who dislike the films of Lord of the Rings for the mere fact they left a lot of aspects out. The films run three hours and keeps the narrative of the book trilogy tight. If it was a television series, this could have been fixed. But as films these are closest to what an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings should be structured as (even if it wasn't done to many people's liking). Of course I have a lot of irks with some aspects of the film trilogy myself (ghost army, eagles, etc.), but as film adaptations go this was the closest thing to what I could personally hope for.
"Battle of Hornburg was not unnecessarily long" In my opinion, definitely not. Watch Nerdwriter's new video as he explains precisely why I and so many others think the Battle of Hornburg was brilliantly handled. "The problem is in huge alteration of central characters." I didn't mind some of the alterations. I felt Legolas' dry wit and Gimli's goofy demeanor were necessary changes that helped contrast them and make them memorable on screen. It's easy for Tolkien to give pages of information to help us distinguish these characters, but the films didn't have this huge advantage. Other changes I personally liked was Faramir's selfish behavior in The Two Towers film as it helped his character grow into a better man by the ending. It was a necessary arc that helped keep the story flowing within the film. "and even downplaying some central themes of the book" Yes, the films had to decrease many aspects of the books. The world building, expository dialogue, conceptualization, and characters. What I always appreciated was how Peter Jackson could deduce the complex structuring into a single flowing story with most of the major plot threads intact. I don't think it was perfect, but I was impressed with how he managed to keep much of the major plots from the books. I understand that Tolkien wasn't really a plot driven writer. He was always interested in big ideas and conceptualizing the world and characters of Middle Earth. But I honestly never felt Peter Jackson undermined Tolkien's themes just because he reduced them. He implemented Tolkien's ideas ONLY if it adhered to the narrative that he was trying to adapt.
Under no circumstances throughout the movie has the Ring been used against Sauron. It's only ever been a hindrance for Frodo and Sam, and an advantage for Sauron. The Ring has always been an ultimate power for Sauron, but an evil that corrupted anybody else who possessed it.
Honestly, outside the medium of Tolkien's books, this would have been way too convoluted especially for a film to explain. But the central theme wasn't even lost. The Ring corrupts the minds of good men in the film trilogy also, but they didn't need the Ring to make them powerful. It was quite simple. The Ring can corrupt even the best of men. That's all that was needed to be said to understand this central theme. Sauron's one fear in the film trilogy was that the Ring could be destroyed which would mean his own death and the loss of his powers. This one motive was comprehensible enough to understand why he was motivated. He didn't need another motive or fear to drive him.
CommandoXProductions, you're right on all counts. PKD had particularly high praise for Rutger Hauer as Batty, describing him as "perfect, Aryan," not in the Nazi sense, but in the original sense. I have to agree. Hauer is no longer a young man, but even he says that he never has and never will ever exceed that role.
Hayden D. Ealy I refuse to watch the rest of Blade Runner because such a fantastic commentary on emotion and AI/organic was completely ignored. I'm glad PKD protested the movie if that's true; I'd be insulted if they did to my source material what they did to his.
I kinda owe everything to these books ..i went through a lot as a child ..i had the evil stepmother who liked hitting people ...i was 14 the first time I read these books ..and i used to go live in middle earth to escape my real life
@@Daniel-ri2dy what is so funny?? Im talking books not films.. This happened back in 87 before films.. What you do to a child lasts forever never goes away abuse... I sat and read it was my escape I fail to see how child abuse is so funny
In the book the mayority of the hobbits have dark hair. And Frodo is different because of his blonde hair, in addition to his adventurous personality. In the movie is the opposite. The hobbits overall have a light hair and Frodo is the dark haired one.
Frodo has BROWN hair like most of his kin. When Sam's daughter Eleanor is born she is very golden haired, something said to be a rarity. Frodo is not that adventurous like Bilbo was but had the same yearning to travel, and wanted to meet Gloin and the others. Gandalf is somewhat glad that when he was gone Frodo did not get fat and a bit lazy like Bilbo did.
4:06, this is incorrect in the book Pippin leaves with Frodo and Sam right from the start. Merry goes on agead by horse and cart with Frodo's stuff to move to his new home which is not Brandy Hall as you say but actually Crickhollow.
honestly, I saw the movies before i even knew about the books but I had still always assumed that Gandalf was gone for at the very least a few days while he researched the ring and that there were many more days passing between each scene of the movie then was actually shown
No it's not. The Extended Cut is only availible on BluRay, and while it's mostly superior (except for a few scenes in Two Towers) is much less widespread. The reruns on TV are all theatrical cut, no matter which country. SO unless yo buy a bluray, or pirate it or maybe watch it on Nerflix you're getting the shorter version
I have vague memories of a passage in the book when they are beset with snow on Caradhras the Cruel. They were defeated by the ill will of the mountain but they did wonder at one point whether Saruman had cast the snow their way, both Gandalf and Gimli (if my feeble memory serves) disagree, although someone (Gandalf perhaps) does say something like, if h's able to reach here then his arm has grown long indeed? - this could be where Peter Jackson picks up the idea of adding to Saruman's might as a wizard?
+Jan Uzzell Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and answer before I check. I think the 'if.....then his arm has grown long' refers to Sauron. And someone answers, 'His arm has grown long.' But yes, Caradhras was called Cruel and had an evil name before.....I forget. Going to go and check it.
+Jan Uzzell Got it: I wonder if this is a contrivance of the Enemy,' said Boromir. They say in my land that he can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many allies.' 'His arm has grown long indeed,' said Gimli, 'if he can draw snow down from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.' ''His arm has grown long,' said Gandalf. ...and on the next page: 'Caradhras was called the Cruel, and had an ill name,' said Gimli, 'long years ago, when rumour of Sauron had not been heard in these lands.'
In the books Caradhras is made to seem almost sentient, as if it chose not to allow them passage. It could just be that it was a part of Melkor's Ring, which would lend some possibility to Sauron being able to use it's powers.
Ahha! Thank you! This was why I wanted to check! I couldn't remember if they'd mentioned Saruman in that passage or Sauron! I was trying to find that passage but someone appears to have moved my copies of the Lord of the Rings .... sigh! A quest in itself - considering how many books we have! But it would still stand as a possible reason why they decided, in the film, to make Saurman the instigator for cinematic storytelling effect :)
Despite these differences, Jackson's LOTR is one of the most accurate and lovingly-made book adaptations ever. Most of the changes were necessary to compress the story into 3 hrs and still be entertaining.
Ahh, I see. They increased the sense of danger and urgency in the film. It really works on the big screen. I like that. It's nice to experience differeny paces in both book and film.
it always bothers me how, in the movies, they show merry and pippin as young and clueless comic reliefs. in the books they are very aware of everything that's going on, they take part on the planning of the journey and go willingly with frodo. I mean, tolkien puts a lot of effort in showing how hobbits are attatched to their land and their people, so the whole thing with them bumping randomly in a road and then just leaving the shire for apparently no good reason without knowing where they are going is just kinda absurd. actually, just the fact that merry and pippin show no doubt that they are going away with frodo says a lot about what sort of hobbits they are, and this boldness shows over and over again during the books. even when they do foolish and funny things, is because they are carefree rather than being just unaware of what's going on around them.
I know this comment is literally two years old, but, well, I think it's also worth remembering that even though they're both just comic relief in the first movie, the pair of them really come into their own by The Two Towers and they get to have the coming of age/loss of innocence arc, which is done a lot more poignantly in the movies. Which just becomes a lot more gutting when you remember that in the book Pippin was the only one who wasn't of age yet. He was probably, what, 14 or 15 in human years?
There is a reason Merry and Pippin are very forgettable in the books and their development is not felt at all. They were always strong and remained strong. No change. Pippin was a bit better because he was a little funny. "Fool of a Took" is straight from the books. In Jackson'a films, they grew as characters, they *became* cool and strong.
@@tiaaaron3278 why the fuck are u defending the movies which are even though very faithful than other book to film adaptation still not as good in character development as the books each and every comment of yours is the bullshit that books are much worse than the movies
another thing that i find interesting is that the people at the council of elrond werent summoned there specifically for the council it was just who was in rivendell at the time. most of the people were there to seek advice on what to do about the goings on in mordor. And for most of the guys its just walking home in the same direction as frodos quest. Aragorn and boromir were gonna go to minas tirith to crown aragorn, and gimli and legolas were just gonna go along for a bit until they went home.
no thats not true. only Boromir was going home, Aragorn was going to go to war for Gondor but whether he was going to be king or not was not said. Gimli and Legolas were definalty not going home since they both lived North East of Rivendell and were heading away from home.
Boromir's case is even more convoluted. If you read the books closely you will find that first Faramir had the prophetic dreams about having to go to Rivendell in search of answers, and later Boromir got them, too. But Boromir, being the more headstrong, forceful, and warlike butted in and pressured his father to let him go instead of Faramir, who was more scholarly. This becomes a problem later in the books, as Boromir, being more forceful and less careful, always sought a means to defend Gondor first, then worry about the consequences later. While Faramir sees the whole picture and knows that using the One Ring would only result in catastrophic changes. This is to show how easily humans are swayed by the One Ring if their intent is more on war, than doing the right thing.
They came for advice, went home to report, came back to Rivendell and Elrond chose them to be in the Company (never explicitly called the Fellowship of the Ring I think).
I think they need to read the book again. The hobbits never go to Brandy Hall, they only have dinner with Farmer Maggot (not a whole night), and "dh" is pronounced as a voiced "th" as in "this".
What annoys me is when people want the movies to exactly copy the books or other source material they're based on. It's an adaption and it's a different telling of a story, not a pure re-telling. LOTR is a perfect example of movies taking some liberties in order to tell the best story possible. Movies are different, so seeing differences between the source material and their movies is more of a fun thing rather than a source of criticism.
Agreed. In fact (based on my opinion) Jackson's alterations even made the movies flows better than in the books. I think there must be reasons why critics and The Academy loved them.
You didn’t mention one of the changes that annoyed me most: in the movies, they randomly stumble into Merry and Pippin, and they happen to join the party; in the book, Frodo, Sam, and Pippin leave Hobbiton together and meet up with Merry near Frodo’s new house in buckland, where they reveal that they know about the Ring and Frodo’s quest, and they purposefully come with him knowing the dangers, instead of just running into Frodo and Sam by chance
It’s kind of annoying how Merry and Pippin were dumbed down in the movies but it honestly makes their character arcs a lot more meaningful and powerful. The way those two run after Aragorn during the final battle outside Mordor before anyone else is genuinely the most underrated moment in the trilogy and truly shows how much these two characters have developed
The extended edition does show a bit of the time passing, for example it shows that time (not 17 years though) has passed between when Gandalf leaves Frodo with the ring, then returns and sends him on his journey (It seems like maybe a month or so). Since it has some shot of him traveling about and looking at the library in Minis Tirith and stuff like that. Even still it feels faster than the books though. They also meet Merry and Pippin separately, one of them leaves with them (I forget which, haven't read it in quite some time) and another one around Buckland. The two of them also are less silly in the book.
Dude, could you imagine? Getting to wander around a fully detailed and vibrant Middle-Earth, meeting key characters and partaking in huge battles. I would be so happy.
I am curious how many people who say the movies are truly great adaptations of the books were people who either A.) Watched the movies first, or B.) Grew up watching the movies as kids (nostalgia factor) and as a result have a separate bias towards these movies. This would explain why LotR trilogy fans have a particular disdain for the Hobbit trilogy, perhaps assuming these fans eventually read LotR and The Hobbit book. After all, how many older Tolkein fans (who knew of the books decades before the movies) genuinely enjoy the movies as truly faithful adaptations of the books? By the way, to clarify my perspective, I was born in 1997 and I grew up seeing the movies first then reading the books and later seeing the Hobbit trilogy. Sidenote: this subject of LotR film fans hating the Hobbit films could be compared to OG trilogy Star Wars fans (who likely grew up with those movies as kids) that disliked the Prequel trilogy.
I was born in 1989. My dad pretty much forced me to read the books before the movies were released. It was tough powering through them as an 11-12 year old, but now I'm extremely grateful that my dad was so stern about it.
@@hunterolaughlin the theatrical cuts should be preserved. Everyone talks about the extended cuts as if the film was received terribly in theaters, bomb the office, and was panned by critics. The theatrical cuts were the ones that were praised, there the ones critics and fans praised, there the ones that won an Oscar and they were box office success.
@@PokemonBoy-de4jd I agree. It doesn’t matter which cut you prefer or which one you think is superior, the *original* cut is the one that was released in theaters and won awards and critical praise and should be preserved. At least directors like Ridley Scott and Frank Oz know this and they do a great job to make sure the original theatrical versions of their films are still released along with their own cuts of the film. Blade Runner: The Final Cut may be considered the definitive version of Ridley Scott’s film, but he still allows the original theatrical cut along with the other versions of Blade Runner to still be seen and sold along with his cut. When Frank Oz released his director’s cut of Little Shop of Horrors, he also made sure the original theatrical cut was included as well. And on HBO Max, the theatrical version is the one that’s on there (I actually went on my HBO Max to check which one. Then again, it didn’t have “The Director’s Cut” in the title so that’s an indicator it’s the theatrical cut. If it was the director’s cut, it would have said so in the title.) So I’m glad there are directors that are avoiding the George Lucas-route by making sure the original theatrical versions are still available for public viewing and for future generations. I unfortunately can’t say the same for some films such as “Amadeus”. So far, the only cut of the film available on Blu-Ray is the director’s cut. But I am glad I own the theatrical versions of the LOTR trilogy for helping in preserving film history.
I would strongly argue that most people who watch the movie TODAY watch the extended versions. Mostly because they go so much more in-depth and truly are a better, more complete movie. If I was showing the films to someone for the first time it would be the extended editions. They are how Jackson intended the movies to be. Why not just cover them too?
9:34 In the book he only says, “You can not pass!” 7:55 In the book the word ‘fellowship’ to describe the group is only used at the very end; It instead says ‘company’.
8:40 in the book, Caradhras is made to seem like a character itself, with a sort of mystical intent on not letting the fellowship pass. There’s somewhat of a debate as to whether it’s the enemy making the weather meaning Sauron or the mountain making it with intent.
A change that i did not expect and has to be noted. It was aragorn's decision to try and cross caradhras through the redehorn gate. Gandalf rose the idea of going through moria. In the book aragorn is firmly against going through moria. In the movies it is gandalfs idea to cross caradhras and he is the one against crossing moria.
Great video, one little difference that super fan will know is Gandalf’s word on the bridge of Moria. In the book he utters the timeless words “You cannot pass!” While in the film he proclaims the now more famous “You shall not pass.” I don’t know why it was changed but I think both are great lines
the lord of the rings movie trilogy has to be my favorite set of movies ever. the atmosphere is just amazing, it's just so epic. you really get involved in the story and the characters. and i love it 100x more than the hobbit trillogy purely on the fact that most of the stuff they did was practical. in my opinion, the hobbit just had too much cgi. it lost the real feeling that the LOTR trillogy had.
4:00 they dont stay the night at the farm, they have a meal and leave. they then go to frodo's new house (not brandy hall) and they leave the next morning.
Honestly the whole Tom Bombadil thing blended together with me I can barely remember what happened He saved the 2 in the tree they slept in his house woman does a thing they leave barrows
Okay, when I first heard they were making a film series based on my favorite books growing up, I was nervous. I did not want to have the Middle-Earth I had imagined be destroyed and replaced forever. I wish I had never seen it, and while much was good. much was not. However, after seeing the film of the first volume, the Fellowship of the Ring, I was hopeful. There were only a few omissions and some minor overall changes that I did not find entirely unwarranted for purposes of the narrative and medium change. I actually enjoyed the concept of Arwen being the one who saves Frodo on way to Rivendell....However if I had known what it was building to, I would have been irate (the whole only there to look pretty and cry thing) why did you turn Arwen in to a badass if you were gonna make her more offensive a stereotype than she was in the book, which was hard to do... The omission of Bombadil wasn't terrible, and for reason of character development Aragorn not being ready made some sense. Through the book you got revealed character development by seeing how the perceptions of those around him changed as they got to know him and as he came in to his own, in the Film this would be hard to manage and still have an interesting character (which is funny considering how bad they botched things at the end with the Army of the Dead debacle). I thought all in all with the notable exception of completely missing the description of a Balrog (which was clearly described as having the shape of a man, though all other points were well done, shadow and flame and all) in the book that the whole thing was handled well enough. I did not foresee the utter absurdity of what lay ahead in the Return of the King. And for pity's sake I won't even address the Hobbit films, which had more low points than high points. All of these films are as well cast and well acted as you can imagine, with a few weak performances here and there.
One thing that always bothered me was at the entrance to the Mines of Moria. in the book Gandalf eventually figures out the"speak friend and enter" by himself. In the movie Frodo prompts him.
I don't know about him being a maiar, maybe an extremely powerful one. since none of those rings (especially the one to rule them all) could have any effect on tom.
8:45 In the book, I recall some discussion during the storm on Caradhras about the nature of the storm. Legolas hears a "fell voice" on the wind, and someone, iirc Boromir, questions if the storm is natural or by Sarumon's design. The movie makes it clear that it's Sarumon's doing, but the book certainly doesn't rule it out.
Actually not Saruman but "The Enemy" and there are specific references to the Mountains Shadow bordering Mordor. Clearly they are talking about Sauron.
I prefer the book for the characters (their development) but I have to say that the beginning was very long. It was hard to get in, but once you're in, it's so great ! It was easier in the movie. Both are great imo
It wasn’t really a riddle though. It’s more of a “lost in translation” thing. Instead of “speak, friend, and enter.” It should be translated, “ say ‘friend,’ and enter.” Gandalf didn’t understand that because it seemed too easy for the password to actually be there for all to see. He wasn’t taking into consideration that it was made in friendlier times, when elves and dwarves got along.
+Grim119 Reaper "We cannot go further tonight,' said Boromir. 'Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices on the air; and those stones are aimed at us.'
In the book they discuss if it could possibly be the work of Sauron, but Gimli points out that the mountain was known to be cruel even before all this. They hint at the mountain having it's own will several times.
The theatrical is the most viewed version??? I have probably watched the extendet cut more often on my own, than the theatrical cut ever was by every person on earth combined. Even though I'm no big fan of how Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron die in the extendet version, I can't even watch the theatrical cut anymore... it's just too short.
@@matheusribeiro7080 Of course, but I can't imagine that it was viewed more often in cinema than on DVD/Blue Ray. The theatrical version was probably viewed by the most people, but that doesn't mean it's the most viewed version. I think there are a lot of people that watched the extendet dozens of times, while the people who just watched the theatrical probably just saw it in cinema and maybe Tv like 1-2 times. The people who watch the extendet are just more likely to watch it way more often, so making the extendet probably the more viewed one.
@Fhymi Kururu Yfuchi I didn't know that. In my country there is no legal streaming service that offers TLotR at all, neither Netflix nor any other streaming service. It is just available through DVD and Blue Ray or illegal websites.
Alec Daley Not entirely sure. Its just he hasn't been doing the what's the difference videos lately. Not sure if he's just on break or if he left Cinefix.
to all of those people who say "Tolkien would've loved the movies had he been alive to see them" I can assure you he wouldn't have. You don't have to be a Tolkien expert to see why, in fact all you have to do is look at what Jackson did to Faramir, Tolkien's favourite character, who he considered one of the most honourable and wise characters in the saga, to understand that he would have hated it. In the films Faramir is turned from the strong minded prince, (who is wiser than Boromir, is actually able to resist the ring when tempted and therefor should have been a member of the Fellowship instead of his brother) into a weak worm like character who is in fact just as weak as his brother. And that's just one example, there is no doubt Tolkien would have been appalled by the films.
Maybe you are right, but Stephen King also hated Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. And you see, The Shining is one of the greatest films of all time. JK Rowling loves Harry Potter films, and yet Harry Potter is at best a mid-series. The author’s opinion has little to do with cinema. Also, Tolkien is not an average guy who loves to judge easily (you can see his persona by the themes he wrote in these books). I am sure he would have loved The Fellowship of the Ring, even though he would have despised The Two Towers. Changing Faramir's noble character was the reason why The Two Towers did not get an Oscar nomination for best adapted screenplay.
@@andreekap6963 I agree that one can make a great work of art in a different medium to the original adaptation, but the question is do those changes benefit or degenerate the piece. In the case of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy Jackson's changes are the worst kind of cliched Hollywood nonsense that make the movies terribly flawed, even independently of the books. For me, Jackson not only made a laughing stock of the things that are most beautiful about the books, he added had nothing of any value on his own. The Shining for me is a mixed bag compared to Lord of the Rings, in some ways I think Kubrick did brilliantly, but I do agree with a lot of Kings criticisms as well. Anyway thanks for the reply mate!
@@mrfearfactory94 In my opinion, those changes are beneficial. It’s a coin toss. For example, many people (non-readers) already found the Lord of the Rings characters too straight and dull. Lots of people have even said they have no character development. Imagine if Jackson did not improve any characters in his films; he would have received backlash from the cinematic community. So those films introduced new generations to Tolkien. As for authors, I think it's generally true that most authors dislike their own adaptations. Ken Kesey also disliked Milos Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, despite it being acclaimed by critics and audiences. Thanks for making this conversation polite
@@andreekap6963 Personally I disagree with the idea of Jackson improving the characters. In fact it is quite the opposite, many of the most important moments of character development in the novels are cut from the films to make short cuts for indulgent action scenes or pointless melodrama. Examples like Merry and Pippin in Fangorn, Faramir rejecting the ring, Gimli and Eomer's relationship, the love between Faramir and Eowyn. etc. I'd certainly always encourage someone to read the books. Tolkien's love of works like the Icelandic Sagas, Beowulf and The Kalevala mean that character development wont appear like it does in stories that aren't set in a fantastical archaic world, but it is very much there, just more subtle and stoical. Yes authors tend to absolutely hate adaptations of their work or be head over heels in love with them! You mentioned King with The Shinning which he's never liked and then there's a film like Shawshank Redemption which he loves. Thank you equally for having a polite conversation.
@@mrfearfactory94 Perhaps I chose the wrong word. I should have said "change" rather than "improve." But nevermind. Lord of the Rings is quite hard to adapt because you have limited time in the theater to keep people steady, but you also need to prove to audiences how massive the War of the Rings goes based on the narrative building (e.g., the biggest battle in Middle Earth that will change the fate in the third age or Tolkien's narrative that the war happened in all of Middle-earth) with such a depth of character development. Somehow it can fail when filmmakers do this together. I mean, the filmmaker has to show the scale but also the depth with those condensing times. This also happened to the Star Wars original trilogy, any war film, etc. But it’s very different when we look at a film like The Godfather. Coppola succeeded in bringing the depth of every character to the screen because the film, story, or narrative itself contains no issues for action points. Therefore, they can save all their time to make an intrigue because they don’t have to do anything like "cause a big catastrophe that will change the shape of Italy and its people forever." Those pointless dramas, like you said, only last 30 to 60 seconds, while in the book, a very good scene they cut required like 5 to 10 minutes, and it would have a domino effect on another scene that would constraint more time again. That’s why they are "pointless." It should be a miniseries like Game of Thrones if we want to see them do "the insane scale" of war and characters justice.
not "hundred and eleventh birthday", it's Bilbo's eleventy first birthday
And together they reach the more prosaic number of one gross (144).
John Doe Which is why there were 142 guests (plus Bilbo and Frodo) to the special, after party thing, (which includes Bilbo's speech)
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half of what you deserve!
Wha?
Chris McWilliams what Bilbo had said in his big speech during the party in TFotR.
The extended edition is the one true way to watch the movie.
All three, one night after the other.
yeah
So true
I did not like the extended version's depiction of the orcs at all. They went from being feral pack animals barely obedient to the will of their masters to WW1 british infantry. A few scenes worked well, but the less they talked, the better.
Wait what are you talkin about?
Actually they don't run into Merry and Pippin, Pippin comes with them from the beginning, while Merry readies Frodos new house.
Fatty Bolger stays at Frodo's new house so people will think Frodo is still there.
And there's the fifth Hobbit Freddy - who also helps out with seeing to it that Frodo doesn't leave the Shire alone but with Merry, Pippin and Sam.
Frodo also does not sell the house, he actually gives away Bilbo's things as per his "will" and then leaves, leaving his only relatives the Sackville Bagginses as the heirs of Bag End. When he returns Lotho is dead and Lobelia is shattered by this, leaving the house in Frodo's hands and dies in a year.
@@JacquelineMoleski don't forget how Freddy beat the army of gollum. Wich also wasn't in the movie. At the battle of ballszehard Freddy sadly died with a mace to the nuts.
@John M accidentally falling into which cart? I don't follow. Do you mean running into them with all the veg in the corn field, which I think was more to miss out the long time gap, house move, farmer maggot ect. I know the long trip to the new house, moving all his furniture in, the baths, Fatty Bolger and the conspiracy, and Fatty to scared to leave and dare not go into the old forest so stays behind and wears Frodo's clothes to make it look like he is home, lol bad mistake as he nearly gets killed by the ringwraiths
Pippin’s “where are we going” line is and always will be the greatest cut to intermission in the history of film
The Extended Edition (believe it or not) is how I first watched the film trilogy, and I how that line from Pippin is also where Fellowship's Extended edition Disc 1 ends. It's perfect timing.
Tom Bombadil is pretty much Tolkien just kinda hanging out in his own book.
Jordacar: Pretty much😎
Except that Tom saves the hobbits from the wight, which is where Merry gets the blade that he uses on the Nazgul king. Without that blade, the king would not have been destroyed. So, indirectly, Tom plays an important role.
+Jordacar - I think I read somewhere that Tolkien said he had a lot of similarities to Faramir as far as characters go.
Jordacar Bombadil surprised me so much like man how do I resist that power my dude?!
Actually in a letter JRRT said that the character that expresses him best is Faramir, especially as Faramir's reaction to the Ring is how Tolkien believes he'd react to it.
Tom Bombadil is so badass that when he puts the ring on when Frodo comes to visit him, the ring has no effect over him, no invisibility, no greed, nothing.
Thats how OP Tom is.
Tom Bombadil could moonwalk into Mordor, sneeze and knock over the Eye of Sauron, and take a 3 point shot with the ring into the fire of Mount Doom in about 30 minutes flat if he really wanted too.
Hell even Gandalf says how Tom could take the ring but he'd probably lose it cause he does not even care.
OP but totally flaky. At some point in the books (in Rivendell, I think?) Frodo suggests giving Tom the ring but Gandalf says, in so many words, Tom would never comprehend its importance and he'd just lose it or something.
so he could solve the problem himself, but is too absent minded to do so
Tom can break 4th wall too. Thats probs why ring has no effect on him.
hes the deadpool of middle earth, then.
very mad guy It's more that he's so old and lived through so much, that the change doesn't really affect him. He's perfectly content taking care of his own turf and nothing more.
Proletarian plebiscite: ‘one-hundred and eleven
Bilbo Baggins, an intellectual: ‘eleventy one’
Eleventy-First like
In the books Frodo and Sam don't just bump into Pippin and Merry. Pippin actually leaves with them from the start, and they purposefully meet up with Merry outside of Buckland.
And they leave about nine years AFTER Bilbo disappeared. It wasn't days after.
@Janis1526 In the movies it is actually 20 years as well, they just do a really bad job of showing it. By the time they arrive in Rivendell, Bilbo has already aged a great deal in the movies. Getting rid of the ring doesn't make you look like your actual age, it just means you will begin aging again, albeit slowly. The ring is supposed to extend your life. So if you get the ring at age 50, you will stay looking age 50 until you get rid of the ring, and then slowly continue aging from there. So the fact that Bilbo had aged so much at Rivendell really shows how long it had been.
@Janis1526 Yeah I mean Elijah Wood was a 20-something-year-old playing a 50-year-old lol.
@Janis1526 hobbits don't age like we do, not even the men race in Lotr ages like we do.
@@johan.ohgren yeah but the adulthood of hobbits begins in their 33 year. So Frodo is not so young even for Hobbits
You missed the Part about Putting on the Ring.
In the Film, Gandalf seemed surprised and unaware
In the Book, Gandalf was in on it, however, he added fireworks to distract everyone to make it less obvious what happened.
Doesn't Bilbo call Gandalf an "interferey old busy body" for shooting off the fireworks and also Bilbo saying the fireworks scared him because he didn't expect them?
Lord of the rings is better than endgame
Who in their right minds would even compare them?
Jacob Elmes That’s a silly comparison 😛
Of course it is.
Lord Of The Rings came out in 2001.
It is better tho, endgame is forgettable, it's lots of fun tho. LOTR is just on another level
One of the few book adaptation movies that truly worked.
al112v5 Kabooooooooom!
LiamPhill Bagoooom!
+al112v5 In the opinion of some people.......
Lol my bad.
Sybille Stahl have you seen extended versions they are much more accurate and much better
9:40
I haven't read the books in a few years, so don't quote me, but i remember that the Elves in Lothlorien blindfolded Gimli, as he was a Dwarf. Frodo then blindfolds himeself, and the rest of the Fellowship then follows, blindfolding themselves as well, to make Gimli feel better.
Josiah Moreng You're correct.
You're mostly correct. It's Aragorn who says that everyone must be blindfolded instead.
Thank you!
How would Gimli see that they did that?
Aragorn suggested it.
The extended editions should have been the theatrical release.
No. It was better the way they did it. The short, abridged versions that felt like movies were realeased in theaters. The more lenghty ones, that add a lot of filler and break pacing are on Bluray for fans to enjoy.
I honestly think Return of the King is the only worthwhile extended edition to watch since most of its scenes tie up loose ends and actually have importance, the other two break the pacing for me and feel like filler
The scene with Sauruman should have been included.. arguably. Everything else has been trimmed well within reason imho.
The explaining of Aragorn on the way to helms deep was also cut out and was important. It was never mentioned, that Aragorn is like 90 years old. Before i red the books, i thought he was like 40 or so, thinking he just would have a long live thanks to his blood.
It is in the directors cut of The Two Towers, though :)
In the book, Gandalf says: "You cannot pass."
He also says "you cannot pass" in the film, if I recall correctly. He says it TWICE, and the second time he says "you shall not pass".
@@LordofFullmetal Which was also a mistake by Ian McKellan. In the script, it is just "you cannot pass" like in the book.
@@brooksboy78
Eighter way it's badass as hell
@@LordofFullmetal Correct, both film and novel have "You cannot pass" but then the film adds "YOU. SHALL NOT. PASSSSSS" for extra dramatic effect
“You shall not pass” sounds better
If you look at a map of Middle Earth, you’d realize just how impossible it would be for the main characters to be getting to their destinations as fast as they do in the movie.
Joe King there’s more inconsistencies between directions and the map in two towers. The Uruks turn north east to go to Isengard when they are traveling from Amen Hen which is north east of Isengard. Also, Tree Beard tells Mary and Pipin that he’ll take them to the western edge of the forest to go south to their home. The western edge of the forest is on the edge of the Misty mountains, and the shire is a good bit north of Fangorn anyway.
@@sokandueler9578 yes fangorn reached the Misty mountains, however he also says that the hobbits must go north to the shire afterwards.
You forgot about Bill the pony!
And Fredegar Bolgar, who honestly would have deserved at least a short name drop.
Eemrod I love Bill! He went through so much with the Fellowship. So far that's the bravest pony I know.
Bill the Pony did travel with them in the movie as well, just was less of a bigger deal in the movie.
The Millennial Geek all together he was still there. I wish he could have stayed for the whole trilogy
Eemrod the GREATEST character in anything ever
I literally just got done marathoning the trilogy, so this is god sent
TheBass1310 Damn I'm still listening to two towers
TheBass1310 Extended or Theatrical?
extended5
it was a long weekend
Eru Ilúvatar sent*
Me (being an absolute Tolkien-nerd) am fine with Peter Jackson's adaptation of the story. In fact, I love it. I just wish Frodo had killed at least ONE orc in each movie and that Tom Bombadil was in the first.
I am so glad they got rid of Tom Bombadil, He was a complete waste of time!
TBF Fellowship of the Ring is not a great novel, it's so slow, half of it is useless extras that are completely unnecessary to the story and when it finally starts getting somewhere it ends.
The film however is an absolute masterpiece!
Two Towers was a much better book and the film for me was not quite to Fellowship's standard while Return of the King pretty much suffers the same problem in the movie that it does in the book - The ending is such an anti-climax {and the film has another problem too, it completely removes the Scouring of the Shire!}.
Fellowship
Book 6/10, Film 10/10
Two Towers
Book 10/10, Film 9/10
Return of the King
Book 5/10, Film 8/10
On the whole, I can't complain too much about the 3 films as they do everything else so well - It's just RotK's ending really can't be helped, I'm not gonna blame the film too heavily for something that was a major problem with the book.
It's pretty annoying though that it was RotK that got all the awards that Hollywood had failed to give the superior films!
Francis Wright I agree with the Return of the King. Why would you remove the battle that actually ENDED the War of the Ring and I think Tolkien had made Book Six too boring. I mean, after the chapter Mount Doom I kinda zoned out until I reached the Scouring of the Shire.
Yeah, it's strange that the movie kept all the messing about and back and forth after Mt Doom but removed the scouring of the shire - WHY!?!
But the biggest problem with RotK {Book and Movie but Book worse} is that the denouement at Mt Doom is just so Anti-climactic after a 2 and a 3rd book {what 1000 pages?} set-up and journey to this point!
I've been told over and over again that Sword of Shannara is an LotR rip-off, Sword of Shannara is what LotR SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
Sword of Shannara is better in literally every way! And I'm so glad that almost 30 years ago at the age of 12 years old and in WH Smith's in Bowness on Windermere looking for the Silmarillion I was given the amazing advice by another customer to buy this instead!
Oh and if you want to see an atrocious adaptation you only have to look for MTV's travesty that was The Shannara Chronicles season 1 {I can't believe they're actually making a season 2 but there's no chance of me watching it because it has absolutely b'gger all to do with the Books!}!
Francis Wright the ending rotk was already seemed never ending after 3 hrs of film, adding that chapter would be stupid. that chapter is removed in every adaptation as every producer wanted to give a happy straight forward ending.
Plus I suppose it made sense not to do it seeing as how in the Extended Edition Saruman died in Isengard. Yeah, Jackson had probably made it like that so Saruman couldn't go conquering the Shire. Clever move, Peter.
I like how at 8:34 Legolas proves his elven agility by just walking on the top of the snow.
I think it's worth mentioning some character differences. Sauruman was drastically different. In the movies he joins Sauron because he believes Sauron is too powerful to be defeated. In the book he has an alliance with Sauron, but with the intention of obtaining the ring of power for himself. He doesn't truly have an allegiance to Sauron even lying to black riders in the book about the whereabouts of the ring so he can get the ring before.
Second big character difference is the Balrog. Not really to what the character does, but the look and design is completely different. The book described the Balrog as more humanoid ajdbomly slightly taller than a regular man, while the movie has it be a giant demon looking beast.
I think Saruman actually secretly desired the ring for himself but tried to disguise it by joining with Sauron. He asked the Uruk-hai to bring the ring-bearer “unspoiled” to him at Isengard. He wasn’t just going to get it and then say, “Ok Sauron. Like I promised, here it is.”
One change that I wish they hadn't made in the films: Frodo has nothing do with the decision to go through the mines in the book, and Gimli does not think there will be a party. Gimli wants to go because he wants to know what happened to the dwarves there, and Gandalf and Aragorn have a debate about whether Caradhas or Moria is more deadly, with Aragorn eventually winning out over Gandalf's objections. The movie sacrifices a deep feeling of dread and desperation in exchange for some cheap dramatic irony.
Also, it's kind of weird to let someone with no knowledge about that part of the world at all decide where they should go.
Actually, Frodo does say something along the lines of: 'Why don't we all rest now, and we'll decide later' when asked about it
he says that about whether to go to Minas Tirith or to Mordor. In the Book they are not sure of what route to take, in the movie its clear that they will ALL go strait to Mordor. In the Book Aragorn plans to pick Sam, Gimili and himself to go Mordor while Boromir, Legolas and the Hobbits go to Minas Tirith.
This is why Frodo goes off by himself in Fellowship, to decide what course to take.
He actually says it in both places. For Caradhras/Moria, Frodo asks them to wait until dawn to decide after the first assault failed, as Gandalf's arguments for Moria were not being helped by the darkness. Then, the Wargs attack, and the decision is made for them. Moria then only takes a day to get to.
At Parth Galen, Frodo asks for an hour to decide his path (though as Sam got it, he knew his course, and only had to "screw himself up" to go East.) Then Boromir seeks him out, attacks him, recovers by virtue of being a clutz, and the Fellowship is broken)
A bigger change, is how Merry, Pippin and Gimli are generally portrayed. they are (at least in this film but also later) just there for comedic relief. Never do we in the movie know that Merry and Pippin are close friends of Frodo, and that Pippin helped Sam and Frodo move. Gimli as a dwarf is a noble, modest being that has a strong will and can work out for whole days. This is a trait that made him the only one being able to fight of the spell Gandalf put on them in the Forest of Fangorn and attack (though the axe just bounced off). Which during the running sequence at the start of The Two Towers when we see Gimli stop and start panting does not make any sense.
And Legolas kinda seems to have a power upgrade in the movies. He never runs of out arrows and gets to do cool things like skating on a shield. I am not saying he is not cool in the books, but he seems kind of overpowered in a Mary Sue style in the films
This video seems to focus primarily on pacing, but there were pretty significant character differences not mentioned here. Merry in the books is one of the smartest characters. He knows all about the ring before even Frodo does (Sam has been his spy watching Bilbo with the ring), and chooses to get involved because he knows the danger the ring represents to Frodo. When it comes to Aragorn and Gandalf - they are much closer to equals in the books. In fact it is Aragorn to advises against entering Moria, as he is suspicious of the rumors of danger of the mines. Oh, and the Balrog is afraid of Boromir's horn. Even the Balrog knows of the power that Gondor once represented, and the horn of Gondor stops him dead in his tracks...for a time. Neither Aragorn nor Boromir are a bit afraid of the Balrog either, both are willing to take it on until drawn away by the others.
the Balrog pauses at the loud, brash sound of the horn but it doesn't represent Gondor being powerful, it announces Boromir and Aragorn arriving. This is a beast that destroyed Gondolin and fought alongside Sauron's master- a mere horn won't scare it.
@@IinferusS lmao. True true
LMAO, Balrog is a fucking Maia. He doesn't fear no man's horn.
And Merry is not smart in books. He's smarter than Pippin but still irresponsible compared to Sam and Frodo.
aurë entuluva!
if you know, you know
In the film the terrible weather on the mountain Kahrudruz (I'm certain that I've spelt that wrong) is clearly Saruman, but the book it's left ambiguous as to whether the storm is "A contrivance of the Enemy" or just the mountain itself, from what I remember they have quite a long discussion about who, or what is doing this until Merry (I think) says that it doesn't matter who it is, but it's attacking them.
cornishphilosopher Caradhras the Cruel
Or it might have been the Stone Giants mentioned in the Hobbit.
Caradhas is the cruel mountain, but it is likely not Saruman that is doing this as he has not seen them at this point. This is the point in the story where they cannot go the way Bilbo did, and turn away from that path.
there is also mewntion of fell voices on the wind (which are supposed to be sauraman spell.)
'cornish', you are absolutely right. Gandalf believes that it is "a contrivance of the enemy", but how could they possibly know either way.
There are so many mistakes with your retelling of the book's events, it feels like you read it ten years ago and are just talking from memory.
farts of doom The guy at the end admits that he's reading these differences for the first time, meaning he probs never read the books to begin with.
farts of doom well not everyone rereads books so maybe he is talking from memory.
@@David-gj9qr I usually would be inclined to agree with you. But the point of this video is to compare the book and the film, they should have an intimate knowledge with the source material if they're claiming to compare the two.
I doubt you will see this but didnt Saruman actually help the mountain fall before moriah? I swear I remember reading that there were voices in the wind.
David Baines you're not wrong, but then again not everyone makes RUclips videos comparing the book and movie
One small detail that I like is that in the book, when Bilbo vanishes at the party, Gandalf creates a flash of light where he stands to give the people an "explanation" for his disappearance.
FINALLY
peter jackson cut the movie's story in a very good way, making the movie look like the books, but still keeping the hollywood flow
He made the story have more urgency and tension. Honestly an upgrade.
@@filmaticpictures9693 - if you like urgency and tension.
Comparing the book and movie versions of LotR to me highlights how important the maker's intent can be on how a story plays out. P.J. made a stunning, emotional journey full of fantastical people, places and things, and all of it with a sense of grandiose and cinematic bravado. It is an experience largely steeped in the footprints of the epic adventure film. The books, on the other hand are steeped in something that isn't even a novel. Tolkien's books, in craft and execution, have much more in common with say Beowulf or the Illiad than with something like the Narnia Chronicles or Harry Potter. It actually felt fruitful to me to see that the LotR books aren't meandering because Tolkien was inept at novel writing, but rather because he emulated a literary style that ceased in use for milennia before the modern conception of a "novel" was even a thing. The Illiad, in particular, made me feel this way. Just like LotR it's full of endless digressions about people around the "main plot", which makes the pacing of the work seem increadibly slow compared to the modern novel.
5:00 "Rivendale"
Okay, that's enough. You're done.
Fr
Lol, now I'm just hearing this in a southern accent. "Y'alls goin' to Rivendaail?"
And in two towers “Ay-o-meir”
2:58 THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT HOBBITS DO NOT HAVE BEARDS! HONESTLY, GET THE CHARACTER MODELS RIGHT MATE!
A lot of things are left out but in the end the films did a genius job. I felt a lot more emotions watching the films.
movies are able to elicit more feeling than any other form of art
One big difference they forgot: In the book, Sam is with Frodo during the mirror segment with Galadriel. It is Sam who sees the visions of the Shire, as well as a visual that we later would regonize as the stairs to Cirith Ungol, while Frodo sees who he thinks is Saruman (but is probably Gandalf the white) and the Eye of Sauron.
The movie only has Frodo look into the mirror, removes the visuals hinting at later events, and replaces them with stuff ment to homage the Scouring of the Shire, which never made it to film.
The Hobbits don't stop at Brandy Hall, they go to Frodo's new house at Crickhollow.
If you watch the theatrical version of LOTR instead of the extended versions...well....you're not truly watching LOTR
B T Wiseman The pacing in the theatrical is much better
@@fernandososa6507 True, but that is the only thing that is better.
With the Peter Jackson movies you aren't watching the LOTR, in any way at all. It is somewhat related to the books, but he absolutely massacred the intent and the meaning of the books by his whimsical adaptation.
@@RustyDust101
*But he absolutely massacred the intent of bla bla bla*
People who knows about or how to differentiate both mediums (film and book) won't say something like this against FOTR, even Simon Tolkien himself (Tolkien's grandson) said that FOTR is a good adaptation. The Two Towers? I can understand. Return of the King? The Army of the Dead, the rest are okay at best.
@@andreekap6963 "I disagree with you therefore you don't know what you're talking about" is not a good look.
Corrections: Crickhollow, not Brandy Hall.
'dh' in Caradhradras is pronounced 'th' as in 'that'
Just scrolled through to see if someone else had pointed this out! Well done - nice to see someone who has read the books and remembers what is in them.
So much mispronunciation in this video
The whole part that Tolkien opens with where he gives the history about hobbits (concerning hobbits) is actually in the extended edition right after the movie covers sauron's defeat and before frodo's in the woods waiting for Gandalf. The lack of that one scene pains me everytime I watch the theatrical, it's just so good at countering the battle intensity of the first 5 minutes and sets a great tone
Love the book for its world building and love the film for its coherent narrative. They're both excellent for surprisingly very different reasons. My friends couldn't get into the book sadly because most of the story was VERY expository. JRR Tolkien wanted Middle Earth to live and breathe. I think Peter Jackson understood that, and that's why I'll never understand why many fans of the book could ask more from him in a single movie.
When a book gets a litteral cult folllowing, it's bound to be ferociously defended by Ayatollahs...
"YOU ARE NOT ADAPTING EVERY SINGLE LINE AND WORD IN THE CORRECT ORDER! YOU SHALL BURN AT THE STAKE, HERETIC!!!"
+sakor88 Thanks for replying respectfully. I would say it's not a strawman as this comment was not referring to you or anybody with a similar opinion to yourself. My comments reflect the community who dislike the films of Lord of the Rings for the mere fact they left a lot of aspects out. The films run three hours and keeps the narrative of the book trilogy tight. If it was a television series, this could have been fixed. But as films these are closest to what an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings should be structured as (even if it wasn't done to many people's liking). Of course I have a lot of irks with some aspects of the film trilogy myself (ghost army, eagles, etc.), but as film adaptations go this was the closest thing to what I could personally hope for.
"Battle of Hornburg was not unnecessarily long"
In my opinion, definitely not. Watch Nerdwriter's new video as he explains precisely why I and so many others think the Battle of Hornburg was brilliantly handled.
"The problem is in huge alteration of central characters."
I didn't mind some of the alterations. I felt Legolas' dry wit and Gimli's goofy demeanor were necessary changes that helped contrast them and make them memorable on screen. It's easy for Tolkien to give pages of information to help us distinguish these characters, but the films didn't have this huge advantage. Other changes I personally liked was Faramir's selfish behavior in The Two Towers film as it helped his character grow into a better man by the ending. It was a necessary arc that helped keep the story flowing within the film.
"and even downplaying some central themes of the book"
Yes, the films had to decrease many aspects of the books. The world building, expository dialogue, conceptualization, and characters. What I always appreciated was how Peter Jackson could deduce the complex structuring into a single flowing story with most of the major plot threads intact. I don't think it was perfect, but I was impressed with how he managed to keep much of the major plots from the books. I understand that Tolkien wasn't really a plot driven writer. He was always interested in big ideas and conceptualizing the world and characters of Middle Earth. But I honestly never felt Peter Jackson undermined Tolkien's themes just because he reduced them. He implemented Tolkien's ideas ONLY if it adhered to the narrative that he was trying to adapt.
Under no circumstances throughout the movie has the Ring been used against Sauron. It's only ever been a hindrance for Frodo and Sam, and an advantage for Sauron. The Ring has always been an ultimate power for Sauron, but an evil that corrupted anybody else who possessed it.
Honestly, outside the medium of Tolkien's books, this would have been way too convoluted especially for a film to explain. But the central theme wasn't even lost. The Ring corrupts the minds of good men in the film trilogy also, but they didn't need the Ring to make them powerful. It was quite simple. The Ring can corrupt even the best of men. That's all that was needed to be said to understand this central theme.
Sauron's one fear in the film trilogy was that the Ring could be destroyed which would mean his own death and the loss of his powers. This one motive was comprehensible enough to understand why he was motivated. He didn't need another motive or fear to drive him.
Can you guys do Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Please?
CommandoXProductions, you're right on all counts.
PKD had particularly high praise for Rutger Hauer as Batty, describing him as "perfect, Aryan," not in the Nazi sense, but in the original sense.
I have to agree.
Hauer is no longer a young man, but even he says that he never has and never will ever exceed that role.
Hayden D. Ealy I refuse to watch the rest of Blade Runner because such a fantastic commentary on emotion and AI/organic was completely ignored. I'm glad PKD protested the movie if that's true; I'd be insulted if they did to my source material what they did to his.
Maybe. That means slogging through a movie with Harrison Ford, who, contrary to nerddom laws, I absolutely abhor.
Hayden D. Ealy the Lost in Translation guy has a good video on it.
Using the theatrical... lame.
maulCS go cry
Tbh in beiging I thought you are same guy your pictures when first looking were similiar.
maulCS I've only seen the extended
Jake Johnson
If you watch the extended first (as I did) then the theatrical is fucking unwatchable.
Rick Berman McCallum true
I kinda owe everything to these books ..i went through a lot as a child ..i had the evil stepmother who liked hitting people ...i was 14 the first time I read these books ..and i used to go live in middle earth to escape my real life
That's awesome! That's what writing/art is all about. Fantastical escape. Glad you made it out.
You picked an amazing world to live in then :), hope you are doing good now Debbie, take care!
Looooooolllll
@@andrejristic4956 yea I'm OK that was back in 87 so I grew up and I havnt seen her for years since my dad passed
@@Daniel-ri2dy what is so funny?? Im talking books not films.. This happened back in 87 before films.. What you do to a child lasts forever never goes away abuse... I sat and read it was my escape I fail to see how child abuse is so funny
You forgot that Pippin actually joined the company much more early on and Merry a bit later
Its sad that most people only know the theatrical version. To me Lord of the Rings is the definiton of "Extended Version or you havent seen the movie"
In the book the mayority of the hobbits have dark hair. And Frodo is different because of his blonde hair, in addition to his adventurous personality.
In the movie is the opposite. The hobbits overall have a light hair and Frodo is the dark haired one.
Wait, he wrote that Frodo had blonde hair?
K I have _not_ paid attention
Frodo has BROWN hair like most of his kin. When Sam's daughter Eleanor is born she is very golden haired, something said to be a rarity.
Frodo is not that adventurous like Bilbo was but had the same yearning to travel, and wanted to meet Gloin and the others. Gandalf is somewhat glad that when he was gone Frodo did not get fat and a bit lazy like Bilbo did.
@@SantomPh Oh thank god
@@SantomPh Frodo had "fair" hair compared to other hobbits. So not really blond but not dark haired either.
4:06, this is incorrect in the book Pippin leaves with Frodo and Sam right from the start.
Merry goes on agead by horse and cart with Frodo's stuff to move to his new home which is not Brandy Hall as you say but actually Crickhollow.
honestly, I saw the movies before i even knew about the books but I had still always assumed that Gandalf was gone for at the very least a few days while he researched the ring and that there were many more days passing between each scene of the movie then was actually shown
this video literally did my essay for me. bless you!
The most viewed version of the film - isn't it the extended cut?
No it's not. The Extended Cut is only availible on BluRay, and while it's mostly superior (except for a few scenes in Two Towers) is much less widespread. The reruns on TV are all theatrical cut, no matter which country. SO unless yo buy a bluray, or pirate it or maybe watch it on Nerflix you're getting the shorter version
The extended trilogy came out on DVD at least a year after the theatrical version. A lot of ppl had already bought it.
DirtyMack It's not on Netflix, is it?
DirtyMack not true. the reruns of lord of the rings trilogy on tv in my country are the extended additions.
makes me wanna move to your country now xD
You forgot to mention my favorite character, the fox from Three is Company. And Gildor
I have vague memories of a passage in the book when they are beset with snow on Caradhras the Cruel. They were defeated by the ill will of the mountain but they did wonder at one point whether Saruman had cast the snow their way, both Gandalf and Gimli (if my feeble memory serves) disagree, although someone (Gandalf perhaps) does say something like, if h's able to reach here then his arm has grown long indeed? - this could be where Peter Jackson picks up the idea of adding to Saruman's might as a wizard?
+Jan Uzzell Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and answer before I check. I think the 'if.....then his arm has grown long' refers to Sauron. And someone answers, 'His arm has grown long.' But yes, Caradhras was called Cruel and had an evil name before.....I forget. Going to go and check it.
+Jan Uzzell Got it:
I wonder if this is a contrivance of the Enemy,' said Boromir. They say in my land that he can govern the storms in the Mountains of Shadow that stand upon the borders of Mordor. He has strange powers and many allies.'
'His arm has grown long indeed,' said Gimli, 'if he can draw snow down from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.'
''His arm has grown long,' said Gandalf.
...and on the next page:
'Caradhras was called the Cruel, and had an ill name,' said Gimli, 'long years ago, when rumour of Sauron had not been heard in these lands.'
In the books Caradhras is made to seem almost sentient, as if it chose not to allow them passage.
It could just be that it was a part of Melkor's Ring, which would lend some possibility to Sauron being able to use it's powers.
Ahha! Thank you! This was why I wanted to check! I couldn't remember if they'd mentioned Saruman in that passage or Sauron! I was trying to find that passage but someone appears to have moved my copies of the Lord of the Rings .... sigh! A quest in itself - considering how many books we have! But it would still stand as a possible reason why they decided, in the film, to make Saurman the instigator for cinematic storytelling effect :)
"they did wonder at one point whether Saruman had cast the snow their way"
No, SAURON. However it turned out to be the mountain itself.
Despite these differences, Jackson's LOTR is one of the most accurate and lovingly-made book adaptations ever. Most of the changes were necessary to compress the story into 3 hrs and still be entertaining.
Hell to the no
@@wildeskompositum9556Why, mate?
Ahh, I see. They increased the sense of danger and urgency in the film. It really works on the big screen. I like that. It's nice to experience differeny paces in both book and film.
it always bothers me how, in the movies, they show merry and pippin as young and clueless comic reliefs. in the books they are very aware of everything that's going on, they take part on the planning of the journey and go willingly with frodo. I mean, tolkien puts a lot of effort in showing how hobbits are attatched to their land and their people, so the whole thing with them bumping randomly in a road and then just leaving the shire for apparently no good reason without knowing where they are going is just kinda absurd. actually, just the fact that merry and pippin show no doubt that they are going away with frodo says a lot about what sort of hobbits they are, and this boldness shows over and over again during the books. even when they do foolish and funny things, is because they are carefree rather than being just unaware of what's going on around them.
I know this comment is literally two years old, but, well, I think it's also worth remembering that even though they're both just comic relief in the first movie, the pair of them really come into their own by The Two Towers and they get to have the coming of age/loss of innocence arc, which is done a lot more poignantly in the movies. Which just becomes a lot more gutting when you remember that in the book Pippin was the only one who wasn't of age yet. He was probably, what, 14 or 15 in human years?
There is a reason Merry and Pippin are very forgettable in the books and their development is not felt at all. They were always strong and remained strong. No change. Pippin was a bit better because he was a little funny. "Fool of a Took" is straight from the books.
In Jackson'a films, they grew as characters, they *became* cool and strong.
@@tiaaaron3278 why the fuck are u defending the movies which are even though very faithful than other book to film adaptation still not as good in character development as the books each and every comment of yours is the bullshit that books are much worse than the movies
@@suryamgangwal8315 This person literally defends every single Peter Jackson choice whenever anyone criticizes the movies.
another thing that i find interesting is that the people at the council of elrond werent summoned there specifically for the council it was just who was in rivendell at the time. most of the people were there to seek advice on what to do about the goings on in mordor. And for most of the guys its just walking home in the same direction as frodos quest. Aragorn and boromir were gonna go to minas tirith to crown aragorn, and gimli and legolas were just gonna go along for a bit until they went home.
no thats not true. only Boromir was going home, Aragorn was going to go to war for Gondor but whether he was going to be king or not was not said. Gimli and Legolas were definalty not going home since they both lived North East of Rivendell and were heading away from home.
Boromir's case is even more convoluted.
If you read the books closely you will find that first Faramir had the prophetic dreams about having to go to Rivendell in search of answers, and later Boromir got them, too.
But Boromir, being the more headstrong, forceful, and warlike butted in and pressured his father to let him go instead of Faramir, who was more scholarly. This becomes a problem later in the books, as Boromir, being more forceful and less careful, always sought a means to defend Gondor first, then worry about the consequences later.
While Faramir sees the whole picture and knows that using the One Ring would only result in catastrophic changes.
This is to show how easily humans are swayed by the One Ring if their intent is more on war, than doing the right thing.
They came for advice, went home to report, came back to Rivendell and Elrond chose them to be in the Company (never explicitly called the Fellowship of the Ring I think).
I think they need to read the book again. The hobbits never go to Brandy Hall, they only have dinner with Farmer Maggot (not a whole night), and "dh" is pronounced as a voiced "th" as in "this".
exactly!
A fine use of The Legend Of Zelda game play footage,CineFix guys.
What annoys me is when people want the movies to exactly copy the books or other source material they're based on. It's an adaption and it's a different telling of a story, not a pure re-telling. LOTR is a perfect example of movies taking some liberties in order to tell the best story possible. Movies are different, so seeing differences between the source material and their movies is more of a fun thing rather than a source of criticism.
Agreed. In fact (based on my opinion) Jackson's alterations even made the movies flows better than in the books. I think there must be reasons why critics and The Academy loved them.
You left out the different with movie and book Lorien. That's pretty huge.
what is the difference then? don't moan and then leave.
My favorite movie trilogy, and one of my favorite book series!
They never stopped at Brandy Hall.
You didn’t mention one of the changes that annoyed me most: in the movies, they randomly stumble into Merry and Pippin, and they happen to join the party; in the book, Frodo, Sam, and Pippin leave Hobbiton together and meet up with Merry near Frodo’s new house in buckland, where they reveal that they know about the Ring and Frodo’s quest, and they purposefully come with him knowing the dangers, instead of just running into Frodo and Sam by chance
Yes but in FOTR (movie), Merry and Pippin are little more than comic relief.
It’s kind of annoying how Merry and Pippin were dumbed down in the movies but it honestly makes their character arcs a lot more meaningful and powerful. The way those two run after Aragorn during the final battle outside Mordor before anyone else is genuinely the most underrated moment in the trilogy and truly shows how much these two characters have developed
The extended edition does show a bit of the time passing, for example it shows that time (not 17 years though) has passed between when Gandalf leaves Frodo with the ring, then returns and sends him on his journey (It seems like maybe a month or so). Since it has some shot of him traveling about and looking at the library in Minis Tirith and stuff like that. Even still it feels faster than the books though.
They also meet Merry and Pippin separately, one of them leaves with them (I forget which, haven't read it in quite some time) and another one around Buckland. The two of them also are less silly in the book.
I hope it doesn't take 17 years for the next part.
Jk, you have a week tops. :D
Someone (CDPR?) should make the whole book version of Lord of the Rings into a video game! That would be abolutely amazing!
Dude, could you imagine? Getting to wander around a fully detailed and vibrant Middle-Earth, meeting key characters and partaking in huge battles. I would be so happy.
Making that game would take like 10 years lol
I still remember gandalf and bilbo jumpscare when i watch it first time in theather
I am curious how many people who say the movies are truly great adaptations of the books were people who either A.) Watched the movies first, or B.) Grew up watching the movies as kids (nostalgia factor) and as a result have a separate bias towards these movies. This would explain why LotR trilogy fans have a particular disdain for the Hobbit trilogy, perhaps assuming these fans eventually read LotR and The Hobbit book. After all, how many older Tolkein fans (who knew of the books decades before the movies) genuinely enjoy the movies as truly faithful adaptations of the books?
By the way, to clarify my perspective, I was born in 1997 and I grew up seeing the movies first then reading the books and later seeing the Hobbit trilogy.
Sidenote: this subject of LotR film fans hating the Hobbit films could be compared to OG trilogy Star Wars fans (who likely grew up with those movies as kids) that disliked the Prequel trilogy.
I was born in 1989. My dad pretty much forced me to read the books before the movies were released. It was tough powering through them as an 11-12 year old, but now I'm extremely grateful that my dad was so stern about it.
It's been almost 2 decades, the theatrical cut is not the most well known version anymore lol.
No one watches the theatrical cut in home release.
My family and I watched the theatrical versions and we still own the DVDs. So what am I missing out on?
@@hunterolaughlin the theatrical cuts should be preserved. Everyone talks about the extended cuts as if the film was received terribly in theaters, bomb the office, and was panned by critics. The theatrical cuts were the ones that were praised, there the ones critics and fans praised, there the ones that won an Oscar and they were box office success.
@@PokemonBoy-de4jd I agree. It doesn’t matter which cut you prefer or which one you think is superior, the *original* cut is the one that was released in theaters and won awards and critical praise and should be preserved. At least directors like Ridley Scott and Frank Oz know this and they do a great job to make sure the original theatrical versions of their films are still released along with their own cuts of the film. Blade Runner: The Final Cut may be considered the definitive version of Ridley Scott’s film, but he still allows the original theatrical cut along with the other versions of Blade Runner to still be seen and sold along with his cut. When Frank Oz released his director’s cut of Little Shop of Horrors, he also made sure the original theatrical cut was included as well. And on HBO Max, the theatrical version is the one that’s on there (I actually went on my HBO Max to check which one. Then again, it didn’t have “The Director’s Cut” in the title so that’s an indicator it’s the theatrical cut. If it was the director’s cut, it would have said so in the title.)
So I’m glad there are directors that are avoiding the George Lucas-route by making sure the original theatrical versions are still available for public viewing and for future generations. I unfortunately can’t say the same for some films such as “Amadeus”. So far, the only cut of the film available on Blu-Ray is the director’s cut.
But I am glad I own the theatrical versions of the LOTR trilogy for helping in preserving film history.
I would strongly argue that most people who watch the movie TODAY watch the extended versions. Mostly because they go so much more in-depth and truly are a better, more complete movie. If I was showing the films to someone for the first time it would be the extended editions. They are how Jackson intended the movies to be. Why not just cover them too?
Zdenek Jaks no no no you marathon the theatricals then some time after watch the extended, it helps you better appreciate the extended editions
always a good day when "What's the Difference" pops into my feed :3
Kerley Gaming! Yea
i’ve only ever seen the extended edition
9:34 In the book he only says, “You can not pass!”
7:55 In the book the word ‘fellowship’ to describe the group is only used at the very end; It instead says ‘company’.
Dale Sajdak He says both in the book, but only says you shall not pass once. He repeats you can not pass several times.
shbsuri Oh I’m sorry. I haven’t read FoTR in a while.
8:40 in the book, Caradhras is made to seem like a character itself, with a sort of mystical intent on not letting the fellowship pass. There’s somewhat of a debate as to whether it’s the enemy making the weather meaning Sauron or the mountain making it with intent.
A change that i did not expect and has to be noted. It was aragorn's decision to try and cross caradhras through the redehorn gate. Gandalf rose the idea of going through moria. In the book aragorn is firmly against going through moria.
In the movies it is gandalfs idea to cross caradhras and he is the one against crossing moria.
Great video, one little difference that super fan will know is Gandalf’s word on the bridge of Moria. In the book he utters the timeless words “You cannot pass!” While in the film he proclaims the now more famous “You shall not pass.” I don’t know why it was changed but I think both are great lines
It's spelled RivenDELL. WHY do you both pronounce it Rivendale???
Dell can also be pronounced Dale- it is the older English word while Dale is a modern word for the same thing.
the lord of the rings movie trilogy has to be my favorite set of movies ever. the atmosphere is just amazing, it's just so epic. you really get involved in the story and the characters. and i love it 100x more than the hobbit trillogy purely on the fact that most of the stuff they did was practical. in my opinion, the hobbit just had too much cgi. it lost the real feeling that the LOTR trillogy had.
Wasnt the original trilogy originally one work but had to be cut into 3 volumes because of length?
They didnt meet the elves first at the same time in the book/movie where they met, ate, talked, and slept. Movie is when frodo was stabbed
It's actually six books, I think.
4:00 they dont stay the night at the farm, they have a meal and leave. they then go to frodo's new house (not brandy hall) and they leave the next morning.
GONE WITH THE WIND! You haven't finished it yet have you?
Eleventy first birthday, thank you very much.
Stephen Kings "IT" - What's the difference ?
EXCUSE ME, IT WAS HIS ELEVENTY FIRST, NOT ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH
I love these "What's the Difference?" episodes. All of them, the whole series, so well done. I hope you make a ton of them.
Honestly the whole Tom Bombadil thing blended together with me
I can barely remember what happened
He saved the 2 in the tree
they slept in his house
woman does a thing
they leave
barrows
The creep also made the Hobbits take off their clothes for some reason.
Tia Aaron at least he had beer
Happy 20th Year Anniversary 🎂
The Fellowship of The Ring
Original Release: 12/19/2001.
Okay, when I first heard they were making a film series based on my favorite books growing up, I was nervous. I did not want to have the Middle-Earth I had imagined be destroyed and replaced forever. I wish I had never seen it, and while much was good. much was not. However, after seeing the film of the first volume, the Fellowship of the Ring, I was hopeful. There were only a few omissions and some minor overall changes that I did not find entirely unwarranted for purposes of the narrative and medium change. I actually enjoyed the concept of Arwen being the one who saves Frodo on way to Rivendell....However if I had known what it was building to, I would have been irate (the whole only there to look pretty and cry thing) why did you turn Arwen in to a badass if you were gonna make her more offensive a stereotype than she was in the book, which was hard to do... The omission of Bombadil wasn't terrible, and for reason of character development Aragorn not being ready made some sense. Through the book you got revealed character development by seeing how the perceptions of those around him changed as they got to know him and as he came in to his own, in the Film this would be hard to manage and still have an interesting character (which is funny considering how bad they botched things at the end with the Army of the Dead debacle). I thought all in all with the notable exception of completely missing the description of a Balrog (which was clearly described as having the shape of a man, though all other points were well done, shadow and flame and all) in the book that the whole thing was handled well enough. I did not foresee the utter absurdity of what lay ahead in the Return of the King. And for pity's sake I won't even address the Hobbit films, which had more low points than high points. All of these films are as well cast and well acted as you can imagine, with a few weak performances here and there.
One thing that always bothered me was at the entrance to the Mines of Moria. in the book Gandalf eventually figures out the"speak friend and enter" by himself. In the movie Frodo prompts him.
Actually it was Merry who asked the simple question.
MicWhiskey It makes Frodo, the central character of the film, a bigger player which is important for the narrative to work
For that matter, a lot of Gandalf's wisdom was given to other characters in the films.
Did Tolkien ever explain who the fuck Bombadil was? The only explanation I've heard is fans saying he's god.
I don't know about him being a maiar, maybe an extremely powerful one. since none of those rings (especially the one to rule them all) could have any effect on tom.
I've only ever seen the special extended editions of the entire trilogy
Whoa Whoa Whoa, Boromir is killed in "The Two Towers" in the Book. Come on now, get you facts right.
8:45
In the book, I recall some discussion during the storm on Caradhras about the nature of the storm. Legolas hears a "fell voice" on the wind, and someone, iirc Boromir, questions if the storm is natural or by Sarumon's design. The movie makes it clear that it's Sarumon's doing, but the book certainly doesn't rule it out.
Actually not Saruman but "The Enemy" and there are specific references to the Mountains Shadow bordering Mordor. Clearly they are talking about Sauron.
I prefer the book for the characters (their development) but I have to say that the beginning was very long. It was hard to get in, but once you're in, it's so great !
It was easier in the movie.
Both are great imo
Wasn't it Merry who suggested it was a riddle to open the doors to Moria instead of Frodo in the movie?
Merry and Pippen, unlike in the movie, were actually very brave, honorable, and loyal hobbits throughout the books.
In the movies when theyre on top of the mountains discussing how to proceed its Frodo who tells Gandalf to go the mines
It wasn’t really a riddle though. It’s more of a “lost in translation” thing. Instead of “speak, friend, and enter.” It should be translated, “ say ‘friend,’ and enter.” Gandalf didn’t understand that because it seemed too easy for the password to actually be there for all to see. He wasn’t taking into consideration that it was made in friendlier times, when elves and dwarves got along.
8:45 false. in the book, Gandalf can hear some something evil in the winds which convey a dark presence behind the foul weather.
That dark presence is actually the mountain itself though (assuming that is what you meant).
+Grim119 Reaper "We cannot go further tonight,' said Boromir. 'Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices on the air; and those stones are aimed at us.'
Thanks for correcting me, I knew SOMEONE fell something was outside of the natural realm, I just assumed it was Gandalf.
In the book they discuss if it could possibly be the work of Sauron, but Gimli points out that the mountain was known to be cruel even before all this. They hint at the mountain having it's own will several times.
The theatrical is the most viewed version??? I have probably watched the extendet cut more often on my own, than the theatrical cut ever was by every person on earth combined. Even though I'm no big fan of how Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron die in the extendet version, I can't even watch the theatrical cut anymore... it's just too short.
well, you know, the theatrical version was played in theaters.
@@matheusribeiro7080 Of course, but I can't imagine that it was viewed more often in cinema than on DVD/Blue Ray. The theatrical version was probably viewed by the most people, but that doesn't mean it's the most viewed version. I think there are a lot of people that watched the extendet dozens of times, while the people who just watched the theatrical probably just saw it in cinema and maybe Tv like 1-2 times. The people who watch the extendet are just more likely to watch it way more often, so making the extendet probably the more viewed one.
@Fhymi Kururu Yfuchi I didn't know that. In my country there is no legal streaming service that offers TLotR at all, neither Netflix nor any other streaming service. It is just available through DVD and Blue Ray or illegal websites.
After Boromir died, he then relocated to Winterfell.
He who?
4:12 - they never go to Brandy Hall in the book.
Great video but I'm not gonna lie. I miss Casey. The new guy just doesn't have the same energy.
Jacob Schmidt What happened to Casey?
Alec Daley Not entirely sure. Its just he hasn't been doing the what's the difference videos lately. Not sure if he's just on break or if he left Cinefix.
The trilogy is so beautiful. The graphics will forever hold up
The music makes me so happy but yet so sad yknow...
You say graphics like it's a video game. You mean "special effects"
04:21 that character was never mentioned in the movies 😂
to all of those people who say "Tolkien would've loved the movies had he been alive to see them" I can assure you he wouldn't have. You don't have to be a Tolkien expert to see why, in fact all you have to do is look at what Jackson did to Faramir, Tolkien's favourite character, who he considered one of the most honourable and wise characters in the saga, to understand that he would have hated it. In the films Faramir is turned from the strong minded prince, (who is wiser than Boromir, is actually able to resist the ring when tempted and therefor should have been a member of the Fellowship instead of his brother) into a weak worm like character who is in fact just as weak as his brother. And that's just one example, there is no doubt Tolkien would have been appalled by the films.
Maybe you are right, but Stephen King also hated Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. And you see, The Shining is one of the greatest films of all time. JK Rowling loves Harry Potter films, and yet Harry Potter is at best a mid-series. The author’s opinion has little to do with cinema.
Also, Tolkien is not an average guy who loves to judge easily (you can see his persona by the themes he wrote in these books). I am sure he would have loved The Fellowship of the Ring, even though he would have despised The Two Towers. Changing Faramir's noble character was the reason why The Two Towers did not get an Oscar nomination for best adapted screenplay.
@@andreekap6963 I agree that one can make a great work of art in a different medium to the original adaptation, but the question is do those changes benefit or degenerate the piece. In the case of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy Jackson's changes are the worst kind of cliched Hollywood nonsense that make the movies terribly flawed, even independently of the books. For me, Jackson not only made a laughing stock of the things that are most beautiful about the books, he added had nothing of any value on his own. The Shining for me is a mixed bag compared to Lord of the Rings, in some ways I think Kubrick did brilliantly, but I do agree with a lot of Kings criticisms as well. Anyway thanks for the reply mate!
@@mrfearfactory94 In my opinion, those changes are beneficial. It’s a coin toss. For example, many people (non-readers) already found the Lord of the Rings characters too straight and dull. Lots of people have even said they have no character development. Imagine if Jackson did not improve any characters in his films; he would have received backlash from the cinematic community. So those films introduced new generations to Tolkien.
As for authors, I think it's generally true that most authors dislike their own adaptations. Ken Kesey also disliked Milos Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, despite it being acclaimed by critics and audiences. Thanks for making this conversation polite
@@andreekap6963 Personally I disagree with the idea of Jackson improving the characters. In fact it is quite the opposite, many of the most important moments of character development in the novels are cut from the films to make short cuts for indulgent action scenes or pointless melodrama. Examples like Merry and Pippin in Fangorn, Faramir rejecting the ring, Gimli and Eomer's relationship, the love between Faramir and Eowyn. etc. I'd certainly always encourage someone to read the books. Tolkien's love of works like the Icelandic Sagas, Beowulf and The Kalevala mean that character development wont appear like it does in stories that aren't set in a fantastical archaic world, but it is very much there, just more subtle and stoical.
Yes authors tend to absolutely hate adaptations of their work or be head over heels in love with them! You mentioned King with The Shinning which he's never liked and then there's a film like Shawshank Redemption which he loves. Thank you equally for having a polite conversation.
@@mrfearfactory94 Perhaps I chose the wrong word. I should have said "change" rather than "improve." But nevermind. Lord of the Rings is quite hard to adapt because you have limited time in the theater to keep people steady, but you also need to prove to audiences how massive the War of the Rings goes based on the narrative building (e.g., the biggest battle in Middle Earth that will change the fate in the third age or Tolkien's narrative that the war happened in all of Middle-earth) with such a depth of character development. Somehow it can fail when filmmakers do this together. I mean, the filmmaker has to show the scale but also the depth with those condensing times. This also happened to the Star Wars original trilogy, any war film, etc. But it’s very different when we look at a film like The Godfather. Coppola succeeded in bringing the depth of every character to the screen because the film, story, or narrative itself contains no issues for action points. Therefore, they can save all their time to make an intrigue because they don’t have to do anything like "cause a big catastrophe that will change the shape of Italy and its people forever." Those pointless dramas, like you said, only last 30 to 60 seconds, while in the book, a very good scene they cut required like 5 to 10 minutes, and it would have a domino effect on another scene that would constraint more time again. That’s why they are "pointless." It should be a miniseries like Game of Thrones if we want to see them do "the insane scale" of war and characters justice.
You should do a video on Game of Thrones