Theoden didn't go to Helm's Deep to prepare for battle in the book. He rides to the Isen to face Saruman's forces in the field. On the way he is met by his own riders fleeing the Isen with news of a huge army heading their way. Theoden decides he doesn't have the numbers to face the Urukai in the field, so he turns towards Helm's Deep to make a stand there. Also I think Peter Jackson took the set piece of Theodred's burial from Theoden's burial at the end of the story.
Theoden does not decide to go to Helm's Deep instead of Isen. As his men inform him what happened at the Isen, Gandalf looks ahead even with the help of Legolas towards Isengard where Legolas sees some large forms moving and Gandalf understands that the Ents have gone to Isengard. So, he advises Theoden to go to Helm's Deep to fortify there and he runs with Shadowfax to Orthanc to ask for help from Treebeard.
@@georgep7373 I thought that Gandalf was advising Theoden send his men to Helm's Deep from the start, but Theoden wanted to bring the battle to the Ford of Isen as the Riders of Rohan fight better in the open field. They then switch to Helm's Deep as Gandalf advised as the Ford has already been taken and the guardians of the ford have falling back to Helm's Deep.
@@kelaEQ2 No, Gandalf was advising Theoden to go to Dunharrow with the women and children for protection and send his army to the Ford of Isen since this was the place where the battle was taking place. But since Theoden decided to go with his army, the plan was to go to the Fords and not to any fort. And when the messenger informed them that the Fords were taken by Saruman, Gandalf told Theoden to make for Helm's Deep and ran with Shadowfax to Isengard. There, he met Merry and Pippin for the first time and talked to Treebeard so that the Huorns would come.
Théoden's cure isn't anti-climactic in the book, since the book was never leading up to a climax with it in the first place. Here's a totally new character being influenced by the whisperings of his councilor... no build-up there. To call this scene anti-climactic implies that it should have been a climax. It was turned into one for the movie, but it was never one in the book.
Yes. The hindsight knowledge that Gandalf had the Hype-ring, means he goes around hyping everyone up, and it all makes sense. Grima is patronising the king, bringing him his slippers and brushing his hair for years, making him 'feel' old. Gandalf marches in and says "hey, are you going to be a pussy or not?!" And that's enough. It's on.
@@histguy101 "Not climactic" is not the same as "anti-climactic." "Not climactic" means there is no climax. "Anti-climactic" means there is no climax where one is expected.
Hard disagree. It's one of the more striking climaxes, in part because of its subtlety in the entire legendarium. I put it right up there with Beren cutting the Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown or Gollem accidentally destroying the Ring. It may not be as grand in scale but as someone who will be grappling with depression for my whole damn life it's perhaps even more climactic.
I think the reason they added Eomer's banishment and gave him some of the lines that were cut from Gandalf is that they wanted to give Eomer more of a character arc having him arrive with Gandalf at Helm's Deep instead of Erkenbrand. Cutting out Erkenbrand is pretty similiar to cutting out Glorfindel just reduces the overall number of characters and gives some room to develop the characters that actually made it into the move (Eomer gains depth from cutting Erkenbrand and Arwen from cutting Glorfindel).
Strange, given that removing Eomer from any scenes at Edoras by exiling him gave him much less screen time, I barely saw him. Hama had more screentime than him.
@moritamikamikara3879 I think it's less about actual screen time more about how much impact the character has on the story/audience. The banishment establishes his moral character and loyalty to Rohan and then the Helms Deep arrival pays that off.
I understand the cutting of Glorfindel as he has no further impact on the storyline. But I think Eomer would have done better as written in the book. Had he been imprisoned in Edoras as Tolkien wrote he could have had that powerful moment when he presented the "awakened" king Theoden with his sword. And he could have had wonderful fighting scenes alongside Aragorn in Helms Deep.
@selwynevonbeereskow8053 it's hard to say which moment would be more impactful since that's subjective. For me personally, the arrival of Eomer to Helms Deep is the perfect emotional payoff to how he was mistreated. Despite his unjust treatment there is no hesitation because his loyalty and honor were unwavering.
@@tobymoe2124Éomer's arrival at Helm's Deep also feels less like an ex machina in movie context : it is a character we have been introduced to, that has a backstory. Erkenbrand would just have been a non named character that would have arrived like "oh, BTW, these guys arrived from nowhere".
Hey, man. I love your videos from the bottom of my heart. One thing, however, that gets to me on RUclips is that people keep insisting Théoden - in the films - somehow lacks courage, which was never the case. Aragorn specifically says in The Two Towers that the king " flees " to Helms Deep in order to avoid a blood bath on his people by engaging in open war. At Helm's Deep, Théoden himself tells Aragorn that the instructions he gives out to his men to reinforce their defenses is to boost morale, not necessarily because of his men's lack of courage, but rather due to the hopelessness-driven despair within their hearts. In fact, hopelessness is explicitly the overarching theme in The Two Towers. " The young perish and the old linger. " Even Legolas falls victim to it at a certain point whereas Aragorn remains a beacon of hope throughout. Still, I would never imply Legolas was afraid of fighting the Uruk-hai. He just saw it as a pointless battle judging from whatever army / force they had. In a sense, Théoden was making the most-needed compromise of lying to his men when even he saw no chance of victory either. It is not until the very end that the king finally gives up with " The fortress is taken. " There are portrayals of civilians being too scared, but not of Théoden, in particular. I know this is an extremely long comment, but I felt the need to put it out there.
As I'm sure others have said, this series means a lot to me as a fan. Middle Earth being a place I could always go since childhood to escape everyday struggles and even traumatic events. Just want to sincerely thank you for this series, I've always dreamed of someone doing exactly what you are doing here on this channel since May. Thanks!
One of my favorite lines from the legendarium (they're many no surprise) Is Theodred last words in the battle of the fords if Isen "let me lie here, to keep the fords till Eomer comes" And they buried him there
Theoden's confrontation with Saruman in the book is actually way more epic than in the film. Saruman speaking from his tower tries to schmooze with Theoden using his hypnotic voice and Theoden is one of the few people that isn't buying it, and he is the one who says to Saruman, "A lesser son of greater sires, am I?" and pronounce to denounce Saruman and his corruption, which makes Saruman livid and weakens the control that he had over some others.
Theoden was never a coward in the movies. His arc was going from hopelessness and nihilism, to believing that even if all was lost, it was worth it to fight against darkness and stand for what's right.
Shortening the parts where the group arrived to Rohan while adding new scenes involving Eowen and Grima does makes sense from the perspective of a movie director: Spending your time efficiently is a bit more important in movies compared to books, so you don't want to have scenes drag out where the characters are just arguing with guards over their weapons or opinions on elves if you can get that done quickly, whereas spending a few minutes establishing extra characterization or plot relevant stuff can be a lot more valid.
One of the main themes of LotR is Light vs. Darkness, with light actually having a spiritual quality. This scene is one of the most important in the series for showing why light heals the good and offends the bad. Grima lurked in the dark and perform mischief in the dark of night. He kept the king in the dark, literally and figuratively, to keep Theoden from waking or seeing the truth. Gandalf revives the king both with his own holy light and with the light of day, throwing off the depression of darkness. But Jackson seemed to understand none of that.
I'll add further that, in the book, the intention wasn't even to ride to Helm's Deep originally, but to ride to the Westfold to help Erkenbrand and challenge Saruman directly. This changes, of course, in the next chapter, when they find out the people of the Westfold have fled for refuge to Helm's Deep as they have been pursued by Saruman's armies and they have been cutoff from Erkenbrand (Lord of the Westfold) and his host, who have been engaged in battle already for several days. Then Gandalf then tells the King to ride to Helm's Deep to stop the Orc army instead while Gandalf rides off alone. We are in for some even bigger changes to come!
In the books, Gandalf implies though not stated outright that Gollum may have eaten human babies or drank their blood. So it was more than just Deagol’s murder that earn him a death sentence. In this way too it would be merciful for him to die.
@@johnmarc1986 I think it might be more a case that colloquially, these days ‘murder’ gets used for killing in general rather than it’s technical definition of ‘illegal killing’. There could also be a shade of modern sensibilities causing the act to be misconstrued, as to us, a head of state arbitrarily trying to kill a subject without due trial and process would be frowned upon, whereas in the early Middle Ages (which Rohan is culturally best analogous to), it’d be perfectly above board for a king to pronounce a sentence of execution (at most, people would frown upon him taking the life by his own hand rather than calling for the court executioner).
All the changes in the film about Rohan, with new scenes and moved lines in "new mouths", help build the characters for the audience. It is both rightly done and skillfully done by Peter Jackson. He uses Tolkien's material in a new and different way to best build and clarify the film with all its roles and relationships. Really professionally done.
I have always thought that the scenes leading to Helms Deep were the worst part of the movies. (Yes, Haldir, i am talking to you too!) The whole issue could be easily resolved. Theoden has a choice: 1. Going East, combining his forces with those in East Rohan, and give battle to Saruman on favourable terms or 2. Going West, rescuing as many women and children as possible, and protecting them in Helms Deep. A good general would go East, but a good king would go West. This allows Theoden to respectfully disagree with Gandalf and Aragorn while not appearing weak, and launches his character arc. From Helms Deep onward, Bernard Hill is absolutely brilliant and gives the best performance of anyone in the series.
I am going to be honest, I don't think it was cowardice that Theoden fled to Helm's Deep. I mean if you look at Edoras, it would be pretty easy for orcs to overrun it. While Helm's Deep was pretty defensible. Based on what happens in the movies, we know the number of soldiers with Theoden were very less given the fac that many forces of Rohan were scattered. So Theoden knew that if an invasion was coming, it would cost too much to stay in Edoras or to attack the orcs first or have some defenders distributed around certain points because at all times, they are outnumbered. Although obviously he didn't know the number of orcs, he just knew morale was low, hope was low, and defences, were low. EDIT: I think if he was really a coward, he would have tried to call Gondor for help and not be angry at them instead. Also a coward ruler thinks of himself not his people. Its just the way I see it.
As countless others pointed out Théoden King was never weak nor scared, it's not that he'd "flee from Saruman" but he'd rather get his people somewhere safe and assume their safety, so that's also part of why in the films the Hornburg is treated more as a place of defense than a place of offense, also most of the changes were likely because they didn't think it'd work so well for a scene to be X so instead they opted for something else, curing Théoden for example, it's not that the book's version would be anticlimactic on screen as there simply was no climax because there was little tension, it was more just a conversation and Théoden getting fresh air which wouldn't be very entertaining for a film as ultimately with the medium you want to see people doing stuff rather than simply saying a few things, also in the film there's a little reference to Háma thinking Gandalf meant no harm by the way he stops Gamling from drawing his sword. So lots of the changes are more for show, don't tell and such, as for Théodred PJ likely wanted to include him in the films so that we know Théoden has a son and don't assume that Éomer and Éowyn are his kids (even though he treats them as such) and because it gives us another thing to see Théoden feel so we get attached to him, actually that's another thing, the more emotional a Character arc is the more people feel for and get attached to them, that's why Théoden in the films is portrayed as more vulnerable (not weak) and more prone to outbursts because he's still a man, a human, an emotional creature and when an audience sees a Character feel they feel for them, it's why we don't see the Orcs scream or cry or beg for mercy because we'd feel attached and see our heroes as muderers and not hunters, they would've be cannon fodder for action but instead souls for a massacre, so Théoden being more emotional, being more hopeless, more drained helps us feel for who could otherwise be seen as someone who's almost inhuman and flawless and fearless, there's another thing too actually, Théoden's arc isn't cowardice to courage but hopelessness to hope, Théoden never feared death, if anything he may have hoped for it, when he's grieving you almost feel he's implying that he doesn't want this life, he's accepted that he will die, he just doesn't want his people and friends to die, even though he knows many will, like if we skip to RotK we see Durnhelm (who he at the moment doesn't know is Éowyn) struggling, Théoden sees 'him', and 'he' sees Théoden, so Théoden tries to fight of some Orcs not for himself but for Durnhelm, one of his people, if he can save or prolong 'his' life then he'll do it, if anything I'd say Théoden in the movies may actually have little care for himself anymore or maybe he does but simply knows his time is near
I think most of the changes are a „show don‘t tell“ necessity. But I really don‘t get why PJ changed the plot in regard of Helm‘s Deep. As we later learn - because PJ shows to us - the Riders of Rohan are barely able to fight the orks of Isengard when defending a stronghold. It is clear that such an overwhelming number of foes would have had wiped Theoden‘s men in an open battle in plain field long before the return of Gandalf. PJ‘s change means that Gandalf the White gives ill advise. The change damages one of the most important characters of the trilogy, and there is no benefit for any other figure, plot or story at all.
I'm not the first in this comment section, but I'm gonna disagree again. PJ Theoden isn't a coward. He's trying to make the best decision he can, and knows that he can't fight orcs on the plains. He's never had to deal with them in both day and night. The tension that's drummed up between him and the Fellowship is that he thinks Helm's Deep is strong enough to fight from, not that he wants to avoid fight. "Open war" isn't the same as "any amount of war."
I think you are also missing out an important aspect of book Théoden's character. Movie Théoden is a middle aged man, in his 50s at the latest, who is essentially aged by Saruman's possession of him. But book Théoden is not a middle aged man, he is old, and although in reasonably good shape for that age, he is still old. Book Théoden is a man who knows that he does not have much life left to live, maybe a decade at the absolute most. When he goes off to ride to war, he's doing so in part for legacy. He expects fully to die on campaign when he could choose to flee with the women and children as Gandalf councils, but his pride and his foresight of his death prompts him to seek glory.
Exactly He knows he doesn't survive the war. He also laments that these war come at his later years. And the whole concept of northern courage. They somewhat glorify war and ride even to their deaths. (Like Eomer at Pelennor) it's like stubbornness that Tolkien praised
Don’t even call it a spell…it doesn’t feel right. In the book it’s actually a breath of fresh air (pun now intended 😛) compared to most fantasy I remember. Subtle. Insidious. A slow poison. (Also 13:21 the full extent would include suggesting a sword hilt to grab.) ACTually actually, Eowyn stood behind him 🤓 A difference for Wormtongue, it says he was wizened, which implies he looks old, and that he has a wise face, which…I, for one, don’t see when I look at this guy on screen. Oh also Theoden was “leaning heavily” on a staff, then after Gandalf’s display of power he walks with “faltering steps”…but he can still walk, and he started without help.
I noticed you say "coffinscate" instead "confiscate" a couple of times; the second one was 14:07. A lot of people have this sort of idiosyncrasy in their pronunciation, so I don't mean to be critical, but it seems like it's something that should be mentioned.
Even if the Rohirrim spoke in Westron/Common Tounge (which is translated to the reader as english), the lament that Eowyn sings at the funeral is in Rohirric or Old English, which is: Bealocwealm hafað fréone frecan forth onsended giedd sculon singan gléomenn sorgiende on Meduselde thæt he ma no wære his dryhtne dyrest and maga deorost. In english, it is: An evil death has set forth the noble warrior A song shall sing the sorrowing minstrels of Meduseld That noble cousin, who always held me dear Now is held in darkness, enclosed. After Théodred's funeral and Théoden lamests the death of his son and breaks into tears after saying "No parent should have to bury their child." (Which is actually a line that Bernard Hill have added un honor to a woman who he met in Glasgow, who told him that hef daughter was killed in a terrorist attack on Nothern Ireland, and she said "No parent should have to bury their bury their child" as a grief fir her loss), Gandalf says ‘Westu hál. Ferðu, Théodred, Ferðu’ which translates into 'Be Thou Well, Théodred, Go thou’. Also Aragorn calms Brego the horse (whose name comes from an old Rohan king, hence why Aragorn say "Your name is of kingship" to him) he starts in Rohirric before switching over to Sindarin (newer elvish). In Return of the King, when Eowyn presents the chalice to Aragorn she say ‘Westu Aragorn hál.' Writer Philipa Boyens wrote the Rohirric lines in english and asked Tolkien linguist David Salo to translate it in Old English, which he did based on Tolkien's writing and drew inspiration from Beowulf, which Tolkien drew heavy inspiration from for Rohan and its culture.
I should say it is not a literal translation: remember, "Saruman" is translated as "Man of Cunning" but "cunning" in Old English is "cunnen," so a literal translation of "Saruman" would be "Smart man."
This comment might be unpopular because i have "unreasonable high standards", but i think masterpieces shouldnt be treated like the work of a budding scriptwriter. Every jot and tittle should be respected. Then, things can be added or expanded upon for film purposes. Same for shakespeare and dune.
I love the idea of your bonus episode! Money’s always been a bit too tight to justify splurging on the “real deal” in my house, so I can’t wait to see it!
I completely agree with you on all the points you make here. I thought that of all the radical departures from the book that Jackson made, the changes with Theoden's character were by far the most necessary and appropriate. It never made sense to me that such a radical change in Theoden's demeanor and outlook could have been effected by simply "giving him a breath of fresh air". The only other difference that I would have mentioned, or different perception on my part I suppose, is that in the book Theoden seemed much, much older than the actor Bernard Hill in the film. I guess that having a man as old as Theoden was in the book would not have been feasible in practical terms in the film because of all the riding and stunt work, but that seemed like a significant departure from the book to me as well.
Here's my beef with this aspect of the movies: the whole idea of Saruman "possessing" Theoden is ridiculous. "Magic" in Tolkien's Middle Earth world-building simply can't be used that way; that's not how it works. At least not any magic the Istari would or could practice. You can pressure or persuade or charm, though you can take that too far and cross the line. But even Saruman didn't suggest actually trying to dominate the will and removing the autonomy of other sentient beings. That would have put him directly and unmistakably on Sauron's side and made him every bit as evil, and Sauron was pretty much unique in having any means (the Ring) to accomplish anything of the sort. (And as I recall, Sauron was a Maiar, way above the pay grade of any Istari.) If Saruman covets the Ring, it's because he's all about order and without the Ring he doesn't have the freaking ability to impose his will on others and achieve what he wants. If he can already do that, what does he need the One Ring for? Worse, the whole thing under Jackson's direction is played in a way that's hokey, so hammy, so utterly ridiculous and overdone that it turns my stomach. As others mentioned, people don't just put up with leaders who look like corpses and don't act at all like themselves. And then it has Theoden be a coward, directly forgetting anything Gandalf has tried to revive in him. Fleeing for cover when the numbers are and should be far too large for civilian populations (much less the population of Rohan's capital and presumably its largest city) to relocate any significant distance. Theoden essentially makes moving targets of his people as they flee, to their great harm. He puts the women and children right in the middle of it all. And if you look on any map of Middle Earth, Helms Deep is far closer to Saruman's forces. What kind of king or general does that? The whole idea of Helms Deep is to stop Saruman's forces there. Before they can get to and ravage the main parts of Rohan. This isn't complex. It needn't take hardly any explanation. No. This is just bad adaptation. And then there's the Aragorn and Eowyn subplot. I'm sorry...the guy is engaged. He isn't interested. He wouldn't engage; he wouldn't lead her on. It makes me fairly sick to see this nonsense. She is out of her league and she doesn't realize it at all. And in the books, she's really only interested because he seems really cool and is clearly a great military leader and because she has a bad case of hero worship as someone who is preoccupied with seeing battle as a soldier--not because she has any idea or even cares who he really is. But the other part of this sequence that I think is such a total waste of time is the warg fight and Aragorn supposedly being "lost" to the river. So incredibly badly written. So predictable and repetitive. So cringeworthy. And then there's Grima. What is with the makeup? People are seriously going to listen to this guy? Not for a second. Classic nonsense of creepy fantasy characters having to look like vampires, even when nobody would have put up with them if they had. Why does everything Jackson do have to be so in your face? Sorry. Rant over. This is why, for all the things I love about Jackson's The Two Towers, I have a hard time dealing with its effect on my blood pressure.
I never saw him as a coward in the movie, and being now 51, and having encountered many types of hardship in my life, I understand him even more. This is not weakness or cowardice, but a damaged man in grief, tired and trying to limit his lost as much as possible. Yet, still want to be in the forefront and lead the battle, because he has that stuborness and know he's not for long into this world anyway. That's something a family leader can easily relate to, because that's something I would also do, to spare my kids and preserve what I care about. He also have the best lines in the movies. Only someone who don't know what grief, hardship, and loss really is would call what he did weakness.
It is not that he is suffering from grief, but he wants to avoid the border war becoming a full-blown one, and Tolkien would be sympathetic to the film version, for Tolkien saw the horrors of war. Remember, Tom Bombadil is sympathetic and a pacifist.
Yeah I wouldn't call him a coward. He's doing what he thinks is best to spare his people. He doesn't realise he's walking into a trap. They literally say as much in the film.
I think the changes surrounding Eomer (his banishment) was to condense Eomer and Erkenbrand into just Eomer. This would wind up giving Eomer more of a role earlier on. Not sure to what extent this helped, as it means we didn't get to see him at all until the very end of the Helm's deep battle, but....
My read on the film is not that Theoden chooses the cowardly option by repositioning to Helm’s Deep, but the cautious option. He knows that conflict with the Uruk-Hai is certain, but he has little to no hope of beating them. So, rather than looking at his own army’s strength (cavalry), he looks for the most strategically defensive position. This is flawed logic, but he thinks it’s his best chance of defeating Saruman’s armies should they choose to assault his position. I don’t see him as a coward, just a pessimist and distrustful of others after his bewitchment by Grima and Saruman.
It never occurred to me before, but the two character arcs - that of book Theoden and book Denethor - are the inverse of each other. Book Theoden starts weak and ends heroically; book Denethor starts as a courageous, if arrogant, leader. Book Denethor ends up broken and given over to defeat, but it's because he with some hubris took on Sauron via a palantir and lost, just as Aragorn did but was victorious. Both characters were altered greatly for the movie.
This brings us to the core of one of the complaints people make about the movies, which concern the many departures there are from the books. I reckon many can accept the principle that a movie format cannot tell exactly the same story that appears in the book format because of issues of pacing. What many struggle with are the unnecessary changes that could have been included without compromising the pacing. People went to see the LOTR movies because they wanted to see the books turned into movies. They got this - but only partially. There are omissions that didn't have to be omitted, and changes that didn't have to be changed. I wonder if this is the typical hubris that says, "I want to make my own version, to put my own stamp on this." There's a lot of this in adaptations. Look at the upcoming War Of The Rohirrim, staring a minor character with no name in the book, elevated up to the lead role because this character is a woman written by a woman. Another girl boss, which has turned off many potential fans from this movie before it's even released, not because they hate women but because it's a major violation of what Tolkien wrote.
I think it was definitely a time constraint for this scene. For this, you have to consider the whole picture of the production. It's not just a matter of screen time but also how much time is invested into the specifics of Rohirim's speech and dialogue, then having those lines reflected on screen by the actors, and then post-production subtitles. I think this was cut because it was maybe 45 seconds of dialogue at most, and the logistics outweighed the impact on the overall story arc at the time.
It's funny; Hollywood likes to pretend that "show, don't tell" is the best thing ever and an objectively better way to do movies... but you have a point that they just aren't very good at making dialogue-heavy scenes. They don't like doing them, most of the actors can't carry them (or heck, even remember them), the screenwriters can't write them, they're afraid it will drive off the audience, and all of that also builds into increased costs... and even the public is conditioned to see them as inherently bad and boring. Movies are a composite medium; how silly is it to strip the dialogue to the bare minimum? :D
I haven't read the books completely, but it is always funny to hear here that the lines that seem unnatural in the movies, are said at different moments and sometimes by different people.
In the movie, Eowyn wasn't swinging the sword wildly, she was doing a specific sword training routine. And inside the hall, that wouldn't be a dangerous place to do it, unless someone was stupid enough to get in the way. I trained with swords as part of my martial arts training, and the dojo was much smaller than the hall.
She was swinging the sword around, regardless of any alleged routine, and with people walking around her. That was stupid and dangerous, not to mention negligent. She, like everyone else, had been tasked with packing up and leaving for Helm's Deep. Not a time for horsing around and indulging in swordplay.
Why cut book scenes, only to repeat their lines in fabricated scenes? To give Éowyn more screen time. She's much more present in the films than the book, appropriate for modern audiences.
@@AJ0223 Yes, she is a damsel in distress in the Jacksonverse, whilst in the books she is a shieldmaiden, the title implying she is already an experienced warrior (otherwise the title wouldn't make sense... and chickenhawks did not exist in those days).
The rearrange adding and removing of senses seem to be done to make the movie more relatable to a more modern and wider audience. As the book were written at a time just after the first and into the the 2nd world wars; and towards an audience he was familiar with. While the movies were made to be more accessible to people of the time they were made in.
That's not actually true, though. Tolkien mostly reflects the early middle ages, with a dash of industrial revolution mixed in. It's Jackson that evokes the Second World War - in the themes and the visuals, etc. How stupid do those Orc armies look? The visuals are taken straight from actual Nazi propaganda, even then filmed with amateur actors rather than actual soldiers (Hitler didn't have the soldiers on his side at that time; they're extras from the Party). There's this weird thing Hollywood does where they love to parrot propaganda movies (after all, they were designed to have impact! Real wars hit very different), and created a vision of the world wars that is based on propaganda... and they just keep going, after all those decades.
I don't think theses scenes where cut for time but cut for character. Tolkien was writing an English Mythology like the Iliad and Odyssey and like those it was focused on plot not character. Jason had no character arc, nor did Achilles, or any of the great Greek Heroes. As such neither did any of the men of Middle Earth. Some Fell to the workings enemy, and some awoke from those same workings, but they where as they started. The Falls and the awakenings where born from their existing character. Jackson wanted to make a modern story so he made adjustments to give nearly everyone a character arc.
I do see how changes made for the movie were done to create character arcs that are more complete, and I understand how this can make a movie seem better. In some cases, this can help to overcome the lack of narrative in films, or the lack of seeing things through a characters eyes or hearing their thoughts. And I do think the films are very good as films. Nevertheless, I was terribly disappointed in the story written for Theoden, both on its own and with how this impacted the viewer's perspective of Aragorn. Theoden in the books, as you point out, once Grima's influence was removed was not cowardly, and not indecisive. The actions he took made sense. Falling back on Helm's deep was a deliberate decision that made great military sense - it was a stronghold built for precisely that purpose. But for the explosives of Saruman, they probably would have held out as well. There was no need to bring elves into the battle, he had a good amount of troops there at the fortress. To me, this was a set of slights on the character and I didn't see any reason for it when I watched the film. The negative impact on Aragorn was palpable. Theoden was important as a character because we use him as a basis for comparison when judging Denethor - and Aragorn. By making Theoden as substandard as they did, for me at least, it lessened the value of Aragorn, who, in the books, is even more kingly, heroic, and noble. Aragorn is the kind of man that even kings like Theoden will serve - thus we judge him by those who would follow him.. And the Denethor of the films was so vile he was almost a caricature. After how wonderful the first film was, the two towers held a lot of disappointment for me. My only real complaint with the first film was again, with how Aragorn was portrayed - the self-doubter of the films was a far cry from the staunch resolve we see in the Aragorn on the page. He has literally been learning and training himself on how to fight Sauron and his servants for longer than most men have been alive by the time of the Fellowship. All to reach the point of going to war with Sauron. He should have left Rivendell with Anduril. Sorry, this all came back to me in a rush... Very much appreciate your videos, keep up the great work!
So, about added scenes. I think Jackson's team understands that movie is a visual art, and many things better be showed, not telled. I'm not sure how viewer could get all the necessary disgust do Wormtongue in such short timespan as added scene of Eowyn's mourning of Theodred. As for Aomer being banished not prisoned I think it's to put more events into one character, which viewers easily visually recognise, rather than splitting story bits between Aeomer and Erkenbrand.
This is the part of TTT when I kept gritting my teeth. Was everyone in Meduseld dumb, not to think it weird that their lord had been deteriorating so terribly? Seriously? It went far beyond usual physical or mental decline (not to mention Gríma's own looks of a fresh corpse), and then come this Gandalf type with some sus strangers and starts doing weird stuff aimed at their lord, who starts writhing on his throne, and no-one moves to stop Gandalf? How does this make sense? And when Saruman is exorcised, Gandalf becomes the greatest plastic surgeon and dentist in Middle-Earth, restoring Theoden to, what? a man in his fifties? Why did Jackson have to overdo this scene, yet again? And then comes "Theoden the coward"... no, we did NOT need this "arc" because we already _have_ a reluctant hero in the movies in Aragorn, and with the Ents, and Gondor, because everyone has to be led by their hand and are unable to make tough decisions on their own unless someone comes and makes them to. How people don't see the repetitiveness of these scenarios is beyond me. That said, these changes disappointed me even more for the great Rohirric aesthetics, and Bernard Hill was a great cast. I just wish he hadn't been robbed of his heroic moments 😞
I just realized that if Gandalf could exorcise Theoden (which of course an ANGEL can do, which is why priests call on Michael and Gabriel), then he could have cured Gollum and Frodo of the Ring's influence (exorcism means ridding one of a demon's influence, not just possession), without them going to Valinor. Also, if Theoden regenerated immediately (I think it takes longer after one has an exorcism, as victims don't regain weight they lost immediately), wouldn't Gollum have turned back to Smeagol if Gandalf exorcised him? To be fair, it is implied the people of Edoras fear Grima, and also rapid degeneration can be caused by leprosy (and stress can exacerbate such things), or opium (which would have been used before tobacco was discovered). The royal guard didn't stop Gandalf because they needed to see what was happening.
@@rikhuravidansker Neither leprosy nor opium is a thing in Middle-Earth (while tobacco is), and even if they were, neither would have had such an effect without people knowing for a long time what was going on with Theoden. After all, look out some leprosy pictures, if you can stomach it. By the way, exorcism in the way depicted in the movie doesn't exist in Middle-Earth, either, and even if it did, it would hardly go by the same rules as in our world. And it definitely wouldn't remove the influence of the Ring, as it's an addiction-like corruption.
@@irena4545 I meant Theoden looks like he is in the early stages of leprosy, and drugs don't alter your physical appearance IMMEDATELY. Thus when people see Theoden they would assume he has had leprosy or was using opium for a while; also, influenza doesn't appear in the Legendarium but it MUST exist. Tolkien was a Catholic and would have believed in exorcisms to eliminate demonic influence (not just spirits), like the Ring's addiction: demonic influence can be influencing emotions, and I DON'T mean possession.
@@rikhuravidanskerI'm not necessarily sure being a catholic makes you partial to exorcisms. People who are into exorcisms are about as mainstream to catholics as Spanish Inquisitors. When it comes to Tolkien his vision appears to be that good does not triumph over evil but that good men must persevere until evil defeats itself. Beating baddies with flashy magical exorcisms due to divine intervention wouldn't have communicated that. This is still my biggest gripe with the movies, too much ostentative hocus pocus where the 'magic' in Tolkiens work is usually much more subtle and tied to atmosphere and emotions unlike Peter Jackson, the conjuror of cheap CGI movie magic, his tricks.
For anyone wanting to know the back story of the war of the Rohirrim with Saruman (which Tolkien detailed, published in Unfinished Tales), Darth Gandalf has a series called War in middle earth inwhich he explains all the wars of legenderium.
I really hate to say it, but you are correct. But there is one thing Peter Jackson and his writers simply do not seem to have any understanding of is strategy and tactics, because the whole fleeing to Helm's Deep simply makes no sense. That's fleeing towards the enemy. It would have been better if kept it the way it was done in the novel. That would have been more realistic.
Yeah. Tolkien gave real thought about everything feeling realistic. Leaders try to make the best decision they can. (Even denethor up to the very end) Like it's not 10000 against 200. No one would survive that.(Isildur's 200 were killed by about 2000 orcs. Worth mentioning they were on lower ground and it seems that if they were on hight ground their charge would've made a difference) It's more like 10000 against 2000 in the novel and in the end they are saved by the arrival of Gandalf and Erkenbrand's 1000 (on high ground lol)
@@saeedshahbazian9889 At the time Gandalf and Erkenbrand arrived Saruman's forces were already broken. This was an army which was ill equipped for a siege and had overconfident but inexperinced commanders. They had ladders, but those should have been used assaulting Edoras after the army of Rohan had been destroyed in a field battle. Saruman's forces only managed to break the wall because they had explosives. They also made many mistakes. They did not secure their rear, so that even without Theoden's charge Erkenbrand's surprising arrival would have broken them.
@@saeedshahbazian9889 It is not stated how many people there were at the Third Battle of Helm's Deep (the appendices speak of two previous battles), but as both Edoras and Helm's Deep are cities, both should have populations of 20,000 each (since the Rohirrim are relatively few: since they are implied to be semi-nomadic and thus would be less urbanized, both cities would be spread out, so each could have a population of 75,000 each). Whilst cities in those days had urban farms they STILL would have relied on outside farms for a food surplus in times of need, and 90% of people were farmers before industrialization: thus each city and the surrounding farmland (90 times the size of the city), would have had 68 million 25,000 people each, which reminds one of the semi-nomadic Mound Builders. Thus Isengard would have hundreds of thousands of soldiers (being Uruk-hai, Dunlendings, mercenaries, and Haradrim like the squint-eyed southerner), but Helm's Deep would have an equal number, since the Rohirric military would be scattered.
@rikhuravidansker I think you mean the first two battles of the fords of Isen. All of Rohan military is 100 Eoreds at the time of Theoden, 12000 riders. Also, some numbers are given. Erkenbrand had about 1000. Theoden had a bout a 1000 and Gamling had another 1000 (mostly old or young) with him at helms deep.
@@saeedshahbazian9889 Those were numbers of Theoden's personal calvary divisions: Rohan is feudal. Also, the military is spread out. The appendices describe two previous battles at Helm's Deep: the first one being the battle the fortress was built for, and the second the battle described in "The War of the Rohirrim." I was merely deconstructing how many people Rohan could theoretically support before industrialization: whilst I did not take the Great Plague into account, humans reproduce exponentially, so Rohan would only be mostly empty if nearly all the Rohirrim had been wiped out, which would result in needing 300 years to recover.
On Change #1, wouldn't Hama recognize Gandalf as who he is exactly, not just as a wizard? And wouldn't Gandalf be able to speak at least a bit of their language? Also, it seems like anyone in Rohan would easily recognize Shadowfax straight away, with them being generational horse-folk.
The scene where Wormtongue is "being creepy" with Eowyn is the change that I despise the most. Because the lines that Grima speaks to her are taken from Gandalf, they are words he speaks in the House of Healing toward the end of the Return of the King, but giving those lines to Grima here completely changes the very meaning and intent of them. I love these films but that change is one I just don't like.
Theoden's arc in the books are mostly aligned with the concept of Northern courage (Rohirrim are originally Northmen) The fact that he is always first in war and seeking to end the threat to his people even when the chances are slim to be slim to none. Gandalf advises Theoden to seek shelter with the other noncombatant, but he says something to the message of no you dont know your power in healing; I will lead the army. EDIT I write the comments as I listen. Otherwise, I would forget lol. It is mentioned in the video
Time is rarely the reason to move things around. Keep in mind, most of the films were filmed exactly to the book, and then altered halfway through the day, so they'd reshoot certain scenes from that morning or the day before, all the time. It was such a headache that often if a character is looking down, the actor is looking at the a script that was changed for the ninth time in the past 48 hours. No, they were shifted around due to PACING. The animated movies that noone talks about are exact to the book, which while listening/reading are AMAZING, as films are clunky and boring. I watched only about 15 minutes and wanting to claw my eyes out, they were so bad. Having guards stop them intterupts the music and the flow of the scenes, when they can do it all of that in a condense hall scene. Also the fight makes it more dramatic, and they always add drama to films--it's why they're torches instead of lamps cuz they look better, and there's fire in war instead of the reality of no fire. They talk a little bit about pacing for the film vs movie in the behind the scenes and show Hugo Weaving quoting the poem about the ring there, and go over how much reshooting they had to do over and over again.
They also changed things because Tolkien does something that doesn't work for modern audiences: show vs tell. Tolkien doesn't show how Grima must have been after Eowyn, they show it with that scene. They don't just tell us Theodred died, they show it. That's a big change in not only movies from the 1950s but books as well. Many scenes Tolkien does would never be allowed in publishing today because of show vs telling.
I really liked the "made up" scene of Wormtongue creeping on Eowyn. In the same way that Theoden's character coward to hero journey makes him a more compelling figure, the added scenes makes Worntongue a more despicable bad guy. In fact I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit when he touched her. Gross!
So I actually watched the movies first and then read the books; and I'm gonna say the books are a bit better. But like you always say Jackson did a great job making this a movie, because the amount of detail Tolkien even puts in a darn tree would be impossible to put into movie format. And even as someone who likes the books more, this is gonna be crazy, the two twoers is my favorite movie, I love how they made Rohan even if it's not completely right. And for those of you who's only read the books or watched the movie, and not both, Fact of Fantasy does a great job going in detail but really the movie is quite similar to the book. But ya, really great episode, and love the series!
@@factorfantasyweekly I am more bothered by the fact there isn't farmland to the horizon surrounding Edoras, as 90% of people were farmers and thus farmland surrounding a city would be 90 times bigger than the city.
@ I love his portrayal by Bernard Hill, he does an excellent job. And his speech at the battle of Minas Tirith in the Pelanor fields always gives me chills.
@@bengeisler102 The commentaries are fantastic in adding even more: they choreographed the "sword clashing down the line" by Theoden assuming Hill was right handed. He wasn't! Hill was terrified at doing it with non dominant arm but he managed! 😊
It's 2 totally differently themed tales at this point, although I like them both. Regarding Gandalf riding off to find Eomer, Jackson totally stole that bit from Bakshi! 😁
@jaredwalley5692 I was referring to the plot aspect rather than the visuals, but yes. Both Bakshi and Jackson had Eomer riding around Rohan with an army of horsemen, rather than being in prison in Edoras.
Well the answer of why to move things from one part to another seems obvious doesn't it? In a book authors often meander and you have to read, sometimes reread what was written to try to understand what they meant. What an author writes, and what they say aren't always the same thing. With a movie you have to deliver your message in a conscience clear way. They obviously thought that this delivery better conveyed the message they were trying to communicate.
The character changes of Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir were the three things that made the "Two Towers" the least liked film of the trilogy for me. I felt so sorry, that Theoden was deprived of his glorious victory at Helms Deep. I love it so much in the book when Theoden answers "Nay, Gandalf, you do not know your own skill in healing ... I myself will go to war..." when asked to stay behind and flee to Dunharrow instead of going to battle to the Fords of Isen. I understand, that PJ wanted to have a more dynamic character development, to let the characters in the movie evolve to the point where they already were in the books. For the audience to feel this dynamic and the changes that happen during the events of the books. But I would have liked it more if he had stayed closer to the books. Edit: I just have to add: Nontheless TT it is a splendid movie and I absolutely love and adore the depiction of Rohan from the first impression over the endless rolling grassland to the magnificence of Edoras and Meduseld to the insanely detailed costumes and Shores breathtaking epic music. You really feel the love and comittment of everyone who was involved in the trilogy project. One might not agree with every decision taken and every alteration made but it is still - and will always be - a masterpiece!
You don't have to make Theoden an idiot to give him a character arc. The guy is old and has been under the pressures of a monarch for decades. His people have been harried by Saruman's forces for years, but he was shut up at home and didn't recognize the scale of the threat and has had no help. It's like he's been living in a bad dream and none of it seemed quite real until suddenly...bam. His son is dead and his country is being invaded and he's at odds with his nephew. He's afraid he's been ineffective and will be seen as a bad leader or even the last leader of a free Rohan and that his country will perish on his watch. He's sick with age and despair and guilt that his complacency has been, at least in some part, responsible for all of this. And possession just means none of it was him in the first place. Which doesn't say anything about who Theoden is or where he is. No. It's more like he's been hypnotized. And once Gandalf breaks that hold, he still hasn't undone all the damage. This happened because Theoden was susceptible to Grima's claims that Gandalf is nothing more than a troublemaker, that Eomer is just a warmonger who's trying to make a name for himself at the expense of Theoden and the people, that Rohan has been abandoned and is without help, that Gandalf can't be trusted because he's had dealings with Galadriel, that Grima should be allowed to take care of him and take care of things for him. Grima has controlled Theoden by capitalizing on his uncertainty and despair and emphasizing his age and impotence, by alienating him from anyone who might dispute what Grima tells him, and by curating what Theoden knows and is told. Saruman was counting on Grima to delay Theoden's response until it was too late to make an effective stand. Theoden's grasp on hope is still somewhat tenuous in early days when Gandalf leaves; we see that during the long night of the siege when Theoden is, again, tempted to despair and questions Gandalf's counsel and Aragorn has to encourage of him. Right there is the arc, and Theoden's confidence increases as Gandalf brings the Huorns and as Saruman is overthrown, so that when Aragorn asks him to send aid to Gondor? Theoden is ready to do so. It's all built into the canon story. It doesn't have to be manufactured.
Regarding the question of why cut things for time if you’re then going to use those lines in a scene that’s been fabricated whole cloth - I think that’s an oversimplification; some stuff probably isn’t being cut for time, but because what works on the page doesn’t work on the screen, in which case it’s a shame to waste things from that content that still does work and can be appropriated for another scene. Theres also the issue you brought up about altering some character arcs to serve different purposes, in which case some scenes have to be cut or altered to make it work and some other scenes created for the same; again, it’s a shame to waste good content by leaving it cut if it can be made to work given other context, so the lines get transposed to other scenes, given to different characters, etc.
I agree with Sumatural below that I never saw Theoden's decision as cowardice. If anything, Gandalf's advice "ride out and meet them" was crazy. Meet 10,000 orcs with a few hundred horsemen in the open? Now that would have been a slaughter! Nor was Helm's Deep a massacre as predicted by Gandalf. I don't remember so much from the books, but in the movies at least, Gandalf looks rather stupid on occasion. But I guess all's well that ends well, eh? As I always say, both books and movies are great... as is your analysis.
Giving the charitable interpretation, Gandalf could have been urging Theoden to marshall his forces on the move and then meet the uruk army in the field when he had gathered his strength. As for Helm's Deep being a massacre, without the elves and Gandalf's timely arrival--neither of which factored into Theoden's decision--it would have been just that.
@@HornoftheMark Still better than being out in the open. If they had met the orc army in the open before they'd suffered huge losses at Helm's Deep, it would have been pretty iffy.
"A staff in the hand of a wizard is more than a walking stick." "You would not part an old man from his walking stick." I see what Jackson (possibly) did there...😂
This again shows how Jackson has 0 sense of scale. According to the map by Christopher Tolkien it is about 300 miles from Lothlórien to Helm’s Deep, about 50 miles from Edoras to Helm’s Deep and about 100 miles from Helm’s Deep to Isengart. These measurements are surely not fully correct (and Christopher Tolkien himself admitted that he did not place Helm’s Deep in the exact location his father intended). But in Jackson’s mind it somehow makes sense that Theoden leaves for Helm’s Deep on horses, which is 50 miles away, while Grima leaves for Isengart, which is 150 miles away, Saruman mobilizes his army upon his message (mobilizing an army would realistically take a few days even if everything is prepared already) and has this army (mostly on foot and in the movies including heavy siege equipment) take the 100 miles to Helm’s Deep, and still arrive at around the same time as Theoden. Meanwhile somehow Lothlórien manages to send reinforcements over just 300 miles ...
I know people love Peter Jackson's adaptation stunning visuals and superb acting, great shots but I think he meddles around too much in the motivations and characters which changes the meanings of the work as a whole and of course it works he has changed the story so much it's not what Tolkin intended. People tend to draw the wrong conclusions and honestly after reading The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, by Christopher Tolkin I have my doubts JRR Tolkin would have approved.
Oh, I highly doubt Tolkien would have approved. Doesn’t mean the movies are bad, but they’re not accurate. So (as probably any author would be) Tolkien would probably not like that they changed HIS invention.
@@factorfantasyweekly I didn't say the movies were bad... I just think Peter Jackson was too creative with his adaptation. I have the extended edition myself with the original bookends. (edit) They were not as good as the books.
@@factorfantasyweekly By the way, Theoden said Grima was killing him with "leechcraft and potions," implying what happened to Charles II (and George Washington but with only the leeches), happened to Theoden for years, with Theoden not dying because it was over a period of time. In his weakened state, he would be more susceptible to Grima due to being too physically stressed to make rational counterarguments (and he trusted Grima). Interesting, since Theoden criticized Grima's medical treatment of him, this implies Theoden learned of germ theory when he was raised by Elrond!
People actually think that he was a coward? He was trying to save the people he was king of from being killed so took the smartest course in his mind...
How long left until Helms Deep, pleaser how long? I must see my favorite siege battle. Also why do I feel like the Siege of Helms Deep is probably a lot more boring than it is in the movie? No offence to the book I just feel like it probably was a lot more slower pace and a lot more like an actual siege.
Yea it might be a little anticlimactic as Tolkien generally didn’t go into details describing fight sequences. That left a lot of room for the film to expand on the actually choreography of the fight. Not sure how long until then as it can be unpredictable. 👀 I haven’t looked that far ahead yet.
@@factorfantasyweekly "Yea it might be a little anticlimactic as Tolkien generally didn’t go into details describing fight sequences." Like how The Battle of Five Armies is all but non-existent in The Hobbit?
The Battle of Helm's Deep is a single chapter in the book. It doesn't drag on. You don't see each and every minor action occurring around the walls the way you do in the film. The Battle of Helm's Deep takes up more than 20% of the film's run time, while the battle in the book takes only one chapter out of 21.
Just like the Dune movies from Dennis - always talking about not being able to fit a book into one movie, and then putting scenes in the movie not from the book.
Peter Jackson's story telling is a bit clunky compared to the books, but making movies is different from writing books, and he wanted to appeal to a wider audience than the typical Tolkien fan.
Yea I was a bit taken aback by that. I mean, I’m all for Aragorn loving his heritage and taking the shards of Narsil with him everywhere until Anduril is made. But this part in Edoras makes him seem immature when he’s kinda supposed to be the mature guy. Even Gandalf is fed up with it. 😂
I don't think it's fair to accuse movie Theoden of cowardice. Deep down, Theoden doesn't feel himself worthy to be king and compares himself unfavourably with great kings of the past like Eorl the Young, Helm Hammerhand and even his father Thengel. It's this sense of inferiority that makes him a weak and indecisive leader, not cowardice. Thanks to powerful support and encouragement from Aragorn and Gandalf (including the power of Narya) he does manage to rise up and become the king he wanted to be.
Whilst part of me wants to kiss Peter Jackson's feet (in a general broad view sort of way) this scene highlights one the reasons that he makes me want to ARRRRRGH!!! PJ's approach to Saruman was just plain WRIONG in so many ways. He was NOTHING LIKE as powerful as he is depicted in the film (in fact it would be plain RIDICULOUS to be able to do and know things that SAURON DIDN'T!!) Altho Tolkien was not noted for his subtlety in many ways, the film version took out much that WAS in LotR. The difficulties in trying to go over Caradhras was portrayed in the film as being down to Saruman, but the book specifically makes the point that there are some dark things in the world that have nothing to do with SAURON (or Saruman!) and that Caradhras as an entity more than just a large lump of rock fell into that category. Jump to Meduseld. The WHOLE POINT that Tolkien was making about Theoden was the drip drip damage that somebody who has a person's ear can do WITHOUT MAGIC! Whilst Wormtongue most certainly WAS Saruman's creature, his job was to drive a wedge between Theoden and clear thinking people so that he wouldn't be a threat to Saruman's plans. Tolkien's WHOLE POINT was that you didn't need a magic wand (or staff), or be a physically powerful person, to do a whole lot of damage. Also saw no good reason why they changed the original version of Wormtongue's flight where he was trying to wheedle himself out of going to war and into being left in charge of Theoden's goodies, by claiming to be the 'only person who cared' about the king. Assuming that Theoden WOULDN'T be going to war himself he was put in a difficult position when he was told that he COUKD stay by the king (which, oh whoops, would mean going to war by his side) or taking a horse and running back to Saruman and never darkening their doors again. Seems to me this makes a lot more sense than what ended up in the film, and I have NO IDEA what prompted PJ to change a perfectly good exit. As I said, deeply torn between thinking PJ is a genius and wanting to kick him. FIRMLY!
Time for some blasphemy. I read the books when I was young and just this year, and I wholeheartedly prefer the movies over the books by a longshot. Meanwhile....I wasn't that big a fan of the recent Dune movies(they weren't bad just a disappointment as a reader) but also LOVE the Dune books far more than LOTR.
This is one of my most hated parts of the films. Along with the change in Faramir and the making of Treebeard into an easily manipulated idiot. The decision to emphasize the heroism of Aragorn by demoting the heroism of almost every other character is a shallow, cheap trick and completely contrary to the spirit of the books.
Book-to-film adaptations are doomed without flexibility. Some concepts would take too long to establish (even in a trilogy). The real test is if the overall story can be conveyed without altering the core meanings and themes. This means that some film characters may be altered to fulfill the purpose of multiple book characters. It also means that one scene may need to fulfill the purpose of multiple scenes in the book(s). I do not get upset at film adaptations as long as it is clear that the director understood the material and did their best to honor the intent of the author. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. However, the LOTR movies are a great example of how to be true to the books without being handcuffed by specific examples of lore. Just keep in mind that Peter Jackson had to mislead the studio executives to get this done. What a treasure these movies are.
The LOTR films aren't anywhere near as bad for the changes made as The Hobbit. It's a long story and Jackson does well to make the LOTR his own piece of art (cinema is an art form). But the the studios got greedy and the Hobbit is just too long and far too unnecessary. It could have been two shorter films and saved us a third long film for such a short and simple book!
Mad props to Jackson’s film version of Theoden. After Gandalf & Aragorn, he’d next in line whom I would charge into war with. For the late great Bernard Hill - “Hail, the victorious dead!”
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Apologies for the video’s visual quality. Once again, we can thank Warner Bros. for being the pirates of RUclips. 💀
This visual quality is fine man. Don’t stress it
the visual quality is fine, but the music is too loud....
I’m just a perfectionist. 😂💀
If I may ask, where do you find the background music you use? Could a link be given?
... Yeah, totally 🙄🙄
Theoden didn't go to Helm's Deep to prepare for battle in the book. He rides to the Isen to face Saruman's forces in the field. On the way he is met by his own riders fleeing the Isen with news of a huge army heading their way. Theoden decides he doesn't have the numbers to face the Urukai in the field, so he turns towards Helm's Deep to make a stand there. Also I think Peter Jackson took the set piece of Theodred's burial from Theoden's burial at the end of the story.
Theoden does not decide to go to Helm's Deep instead of Isen. As his men inform him what happened at the Isen, Gandalf looks ahead even with the help of Legolas towards Isengard where Legolas sees some large forms moving and Gandalf understands that the Ents have gone to Isengard. So, he advises Theoden to go to Helm's Deep to fortify there and he runs with Shadowfax to Orthanc to ask for help from Treebeard.
@@georgep7373 I thought that Gandalf was advising Theoden send his men to Helm's Deep from the start, but Theoden wanted to bring the battle to the Ford of Isen as the Riders of Rohan fight better in the open field. They then switch to Helm's Deep as Gandalf advised as the Ford has already been taken and the guardians of the ford have falling back to Helm's Deep.
@@kelaEQ2 No, Gandalf was advising Theoden to go to Dunharrow with the women and children for protection and send his army to the Ford of Isen since this was the place where the battle was taking place. But since Theoden decided to go with his army, the plan was to go to the Fords and not to any fort. And when the messenger informed them that the Fords were taken by Saruman, Gandalf told Theoden to make for Helm's Deep and ran with Shadowfax to Isengard. There, he met Merry and Pippin for the first time and talked to Treebeard so that the Huorns would come.
Théoden's cure isn't anti-climactic in the book, since the book was never leading up to a climax with it in the first place. Here's a totally new character being influenced by the whisperings of his councilor... no build-up there. To call this scene anti-climactic implies that it should have been a climax. It was turned into one for the movie, but it was never one in the book.
Well, yeah. Not having a climactic scene would mean it's not climactic
Yes. The hindsight knowledge that Gandalf had the Hype-ring, means he goes around hyping everyone up, and it all makes sense.
Grima is patronising the king, bringing him his slippers and brushing his hair for years, making him 'feel' old.
Gandalf marches in and says "hey, are you going to be a pussy or not?!" And that's enough. It's on.
@@histguy101 "Not climactic" is not the same as "anti-climactic." "Not climactic" means there is no climax. "Anti-climactic" means there is no climax where one is expected.
It’s a slow burn. You get to see the cure gradually unfolding as time goes on. Still just as good as a climax, I say.
Hard disagree. It's one of the more striking climaxes, in part because of its subtlety in the entire legendarium. I put it right up there with Beren cutting the Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown or Gollem accidentally destroying the Ring. It may not be as grand in scale but as someone who will be grappling with depression for my whole damn life it's perhaps even more climactic.
I think the reason they added Eomer's banishment and gave him some of the lines that were cut from Gandalf is that they wanted to give Eomer more of a character arc having him arrive with Gandalf at Helm's Deep instead of Erkenbrand. Cutting out Erkenbrand is pretty similiar to cutting out Glorfindel just reduces the overall number of characters and gives some room to develop the characters that actually made it into the move (Eomer gains depth from cutting Erkenbrand and Arwen from cutting Glorfindel).
Strange, given that removing Eomer from any scenes at Edoras by exiling him gave him much less screen time, I barely saw him. Hama had more screentime than him.
@moritamikamikara3879 I think it's less about actual screen time more about how much impact the character has on the story/audience. The banishment establishes his moral character and loyalty to Rohan and then the Helms Deep arrival pays that off.
I understand the cutting of Glorfindel as he has no further impact on the storyline. But I think Eomer would have done better as written in the book. Had he been imprisoned in Edoras as Tolkien wrote he could have had that powerful moment when he presented the "awakened" king Theoden with his sword. And he could have had wonderful fighting scenes alongside Aragorn in Helms Deep.
@selwynevonbeereskow8053 it's hard to say which moment would be more impactful since that's subjective.
For me personally, the arrival of Eomer to Helms Deep is the perfect emotional payoff to how he was mistreated. Despite his unjust treatment there is no hesitation because his loyalty and honor were unwavering.
@@tobymoe2124Éomer's arrival at Helm's Deep also feels less like an ex machina in movie context : it is a character we have been introduced to, that has a backstory. Erkenbrand would just have been a non named character that would have arrived like "oh, BTW, these guys arrived from nowhere".
Hey, man. I love your videos from the bottom of my heart. One thing, however, that gets to me on RUclips is that people keep insisting Théoden - in the films - somehow lacks courage, which was never the case. Aragorn specifically says in The Two Towers that the king " flees " to Helms Deep in order to avoid a blood bath on his people by engaging in open war. At Helm's Deep, Théoden himself tells Aragorn that the instructions he gives out to his men to reinforce their defenses is to boost morale, not necessarily because of his men's lack of courage, but rather due to the hopelessness-driven despair within their hearts. In fact, hopelessness is explicitly the overarching theme in The Two Towers. " The young perish and the old linger. " Even Legolas falls victim to it at a certain point whereas Aragorn remains a beacon of hope throughout. Still, I would never imply Legolas was afraid of fighting the Uruk-hai. He just saw it as a pointless battle judging from whatever army / force they had. In a sense, Théoden was making the most-needed compromise of lying to his men when even he saw no chance of victory either. It is not until the very end that the king finally gives up with " The fortress is taken. " There are portrayals of civilians being too scared, but not of Théoden, in particular. I know this is an extremely long comment, but I felt the need to put it out there.
As I'm sure others have said, this series means a lot to me as a fan. Middle Earth being a place I could always go since childhood to escape everyday struggles and even traumatic events. Just want to sincerely thank you for this series, I've always dreamed of someone doing exactly what you are doing here on this channel since May. Thanks!
One of my favorite lines from the legendarium (they're many no surprise)
Is Theodred last words in the battle of the fords if Isen "let me lie here, to keep the fords till Eomer comes"
And they buried him there
Theoden's confrontation with Saruman in the book is actually way more epic than in the film. Saruman speaking from his tower tries to schmooze with Theoden using his hypnotic voice and Theoden is one of the few people that isn't buying it, and he is the one who says to Saruman, "A lesser son of greater sires, am I?" and pronounce to denounce Saruman and his corruption, which makes Saruman livid and weakens the control that he had over some others.
I always thought that Gandalf the White revealing himself to Théoden would have made a great TV ad for Oxy-Clean
Theoden was never a coward in the movies. His arc was going from hopelessness and nihilism, to believing that even if all was lost, it was worth it to fight against darkness and stand for what's right.
In the books I almost care more about Eomer than Theoden
Jackson has a habit of making characters weaker for dramatic purposes. Aragorn, Theoden, Faramir, and Denethor to name a few.
Shortening the parts where the group arrived to Rohan while adding new scenes involving Eowen and Grima does makes sense from the perspective of a movie director: Spending your time efficiently is a bit more important in movies compared to books, so you don't want to have scenes drag out where the characters are just arguing with guards over their weapons or opinions on elves if you can get that done quickly, whereas spending a few minutes establishing extra characterization or plot relevant stuff can be a lot more valid.
One of the main themes of LotR is Light vs. Darkness, with light actually having a spiritual quality. This scene is one of the most important in the series for showing why light heals the good and offends the bad.
Grima lurked in the dark and perform mischief in the dark of night. He kept the king in the dark, literally and figuratively, to keep Theoden from waking or seeing the truth.
Gandalf revives the king both with his own holy light and with the light of day, throwing off the depression of darkness.
But Jackson seemed to understand none of that.
I'll add further that, in the book, the intention wasn't even to ride to Helm's Deep originally, but to ride to the Westfold to help Erkenbrand and challenge Saruman directly. This changes, of course, in the next chapter, when they find out the people of the Westfold have fled for refuge to Helm's Deep as they have been pursued by Saruman's armies and they have been cutoff from Erkenbrand (Lord of the Westfold) and his host, who have been engaged in battle already for several days. Then Gandalf then tells the King to ride to Helm's Deep to stop the Orc army instead while Gandalf rides off alone. We are in for some even bigger changes to come!
@ 2:42
Execution for high treason is murder in middle earth?
I think it'd more like to the pity golem received than aragon stopping a murder..
Yeah this guy has some strange interpretations.
In the books, Gandalf implies though not stated outright that Gollum may have eaten human babies or drank their blood. So it was more than just Deagol’s murder that earn him a death sentence. In this way too it would be merciful for him to die.
@@johnmarc1986 I think it might be more a case that colloquially, these days ‘murder’ gets used for killing in general rather than it’s technical definition of ‘illegal killing’. There could also be a shade of modern sensibilities causing the act to be misconstrued, as to us, a head of state arbitrarily trying to kill a subject without due trial and process would be frowned upon, whereas in the early Middle Ages (which Rohan is culturally best analogous to), it’d be perfectly above board for a king to pronounce a sentence of execution (at most, people would frown upon him taking the life by his own hand rather than calling for the court executioner).
All the changes in the film about Rohan, with new scenes and moved lines in "new mouths", help build the characters for the audience. It is both rightly done and skillfully done by Peter Jackson. He uses Tolkien's material in a new and different way to best build and clarify the film with all its roles and relationships. Really professionally done.
I have always thought that the scenes leading to Helms Deep were the worst part of the movies. (Yes, Haldir, i am talking to you too!)
The whole issue could be easily resolved. Theoden has a choice:
1. Going East, combining his forces with those in East Rohan, and give battle to Saruman on favourable terms or
2. Going West, rescuing as many women and children as possible, and protecting them in Helms Deep.
A good general would go East, but a good king would go West.
This allows Theoden to respectfully disagree with Gandalf and Aragorn while not appearing weak, and launches his character arc.
From Helms Deep onward, Bernard Hill is absolutely brilliant and gives the best performance of anyone in the series.
I am going to be honest, I don't think it was cowardice that Theoden fled to Helm's Deep. I mean if you look at Edoras, it would be pretty easy for orcs to overrun it. While Helm's Deep was pretty defensible. Based on what happens in the movies, we know the number of soldiers with Theoden were very less given the fac that many forces of Rohan were scattered. So Theoden knew that if an invasion was coming, it would cost too much to stay in Edoras or to attack the orcs first or have some defenders distributed around certain points because at all times, they are outnumbered. Although obviously he didn't know the number of orcs, he just knew morale was low, hope was low, and defences, were low. EDIT: I think if he was really a coward, he would have tried to call Gondor for help and not be angry at them instead. Also a coward ruler thinks of himself not his people. Its just the way I see it.
As countless others pointed out Théoden King was never weak nor scared, it's not that he'd "flee from Saruman" but he'd rather get his people somewhere safe and assume their safety, so that's also part of why in the films the Hornburg is treated more as a place of defense than a place of offense, also most of the changes were likely because they didn't think it'd work so well for a scene to be X so instead they opted for something else, curing Théoden for example, it's not that the book's version would be anticlimactic on screen as there simply was no climax because there was little tension, it was more just a conversation and Théoden getting fresh air which wouldn't be very entertaining for a film as ultimately with the medium you want to see people doing stuff rather than simply saying a few things, also in the film there's a little reference to Háma thinking Gandalf meant no harm by the way he stops Gamling from drawing his sword. So lots of the changes are more for show, don't tell and such, as for Théodred PJ likely wanted to include him in the films so that we know Théoden has a son and don't assume that Éomer and Éowyn are his kids (even though he treats them as such) and because it gives us another thing to see Théoden feel so we get attached to him, actually that's another thing, the more emotional a Character arc is the more people feel for and get attached to them, that's why Théoden in the films is portrayed as more vulnerable (not weak) and more prone to outbursts because he's still a man, a human, an emotional creature and when an audience sees a Character feel they feel for them, it's why we don't see the Orcs scream or cry or beg for mercy because we'd feel attached and see our heroes as muderers and not hunters, they would've be cannon fodder for action but instead souls for a massacre, so Théoden being more emotional, being more hopeless, more drained helps us feel for who could otherwise be seen as someone who's almost inhuman and flawless and fearless, there's another thing too actually, Théoden's arc isn't cowardice to courage but hopelessness to hope, Théoden never feared death, if anything he may have hoped for it, when he's grieving you almost feel he's implying that he doesn't want this life, he's accepted that he will die, he just doesn't want his people and friends to die, even though he knows many will, like if we skip to RotK we see Durnhelm (who he at the moment doesn't know is Éowyn) struggling, Théoden sees 'him', and 'he' sees Théoden, so Théoden tries to fight of some Orcs not for himself but for Durnhelm, one of his people, if he can save or prolong 'his' life then he'll do it, if anything I'd say Théoden in the movies may actually have little care for himself anymore or maybe he does but simply knows his time is near
Take a shot everytime wormtongue spits on aragorn's hand
I think most of the changes are a „show don‘t tell“ necessity. But I really don‘t get why PJ changed the plot in regard of Helm‘s Deep. As we later learn - because PJ shows to us - the Riders of Rohan are barely able to fight the orks of Isengard when defending a stronghold. It is clear that such an overwhelming number of foes would have had wiped Theoden‘s men in an open battle in plain field long before the return of Gandalf. PJ‘s change means that Gandalf the White gives ill advise. The change damages one of the most important characters of the trilogy, and there is no benefit for any other figure, plot or story at all.
I'm not the first in this comment section, but I'm gonna disagree again. PJ Theoden isn't a coward. He's trying to make the best decision he can, and knows that he can't fight orcs on the plains. He's never had to deal with them in both day and night. The tension that's drummed up between him and the Fellowship is that he thinks Helm's Deep is strong enough to fight from, not that he wants to avoid fight. "Open war" isn't the same as "any amount of war."
I think you are also missing out an important aspect of book Théoden's character.
Movie Théoden is a middle aged man, in his 50s at the latest, who is essentially aged by Saruman's possession of him.
But book Théoden is not a middle aged man, he is old, and although in reasonably good shape for that age, he is still old. Book Théoden is a man who knows that he does not have much life left to live, maybe a decade at the absolute most. When he goes off to ride to war, he's doing so in part for legacy. He expects fully to die on campaign when he could choose to flee with the women and children as Gandalf councils, but his pride and his foresight of his death prompts him to seek glory.
Exactly
He knows he doesn't survive the war. He also laments that these war come at his later years.
And the whole concept of northern courage. They somewhat glorify war and ride even to their deaths. (Like Eomer at Pelennor) it's like stubbornness that Tolkien praised
Don’t even call it a spell…it doesn’t feel right. In the book it’s actually a breath of fresh air (pun now intended 😛) compared to most fantasy I remember. Subtle. Insidious. A slow poison. (Also 13:21 the full extent would include suggesting a sword hilt to grab.)
ACTually actually, Eowyn stood behind him 🤓
A difference for Wormtongue, it says he was wizened, which implies he looks old, and that he has a wise face, which…I, for one, don’t see when I look at this guy on screen. Oh also Theoden was “leaning heavily” on a staff, then after Gandalf’s display of power he walks with “faltering steps”…but he can still walk, and he started without help.
17:58 I love the change, it was much more powerful for Éomer to confront Grima about Eowyn than Gandalf.
I noticed you say "coffinscate" instead "confiscate" a couple of times; the second one was 14:07. A lot of people have this sort of idiosyncrasy in their pronunciation, so I don't mean to be critical, but it seems like it's something that should be mentioned.
Even if the Rohirrim spoke in Westron/Common Tounge (which is translated to the reader as english), the lament that Eowyn sings at the funeral is in Rohirric or Old English, which is:
Bealocwealm hafað fréone frecan forth onsended
giedd sculon singan gléomenn sorgiende
on Meduselde thæt he ma no wære
his dryhtne dyrest and maga deorost.
In english, it is:
An evil death has set forth the noble warrior
A song shall sing the sorrowing minstrels of Meduseld
That noble cousin, who always held me dear
Now is held in darkness, enclosed.
After Théodred's funeral and Théoden lamests the death of his son and breaks into tears after saying "No parent should have to bury their child." (Which is actually a line that Bernard Hill have added un honor to a woman who he met in Glasgow, who told him that hef daughter was killed in a terrorist attack on Nothern Ireland, and she said "No parent should have to bury their bury their child" as a grief fir her loss), Gandalf says ‘Westu hál. Ferðu, Théodred, Ferðu’ which translates into 'Be Thou Well, Théodred, Go thou’.
Also Aragorn calms Brego the horse (whose name comes from an old Rohan king, hence why Aragorn say "Your name is of kingship" to him) he starts in Rohirric before switching over to Sindarin (newer elvish).
In Return of the King, when Eowyn presents the chalice to Aragorn she say ‘Westu Aragorn hál.'
Writer Philipa Boyens wrote the Rohirric lines in english and asked Tolkien linguist David Salo to translate it in Old English, which he did based on Tolkien's writing and drew inspiration from Beowulf, which Tolkien drew heavy inspiration from for Rohan and its culture.
I should say it is not a literal translation: remember, "Saruman" is translated as "Man of Cunning" but "cunning" in Old English is "cunnen," so a literal translation of "Saruman" would be "Smart man."
This comment might be unpopular because i have "unreasonable high standards", but i think masterpieces shouldnt be treated like the work of a budding scriptwriter. Every jot and tittle should be respected. Then, things can be added or expanded upon for film purposes. Same for shakespeare and dune.
Bro, you’re titles and thumbnails are on point. I see you out here.
🫡
I love the idea of your bonus episode! Money’s always been a bit too tight to justify splurging on the “real deal” in my house, so I can’t wait to see it!
just truly amazing work man, lovely storytelling, you had me enthralled till the end. keep em coming!
Thanks for watching! Will do 🫡
Theoden is one of the changes in the movies that bothers me the most, right up there with the Aragorn and the hobbits
I completely agree with you on all the points you make here. I thought that of all the radical departures from the book that Jackson made, the changes with Theoden's character were by far the most necessary and appropriate. It never made sense to me that such a radical change in Theoden's demeanor and outlook could have been effected by simply "giving him a breath of fresh air". The only other difference that I would have mentioned, or different perception on my part I suppose, is that in the book Theoden seemed much, much older than the actor Bernard Hill in the film. I guess that having a man as old as Theoden was in the book would not have been feasible in practical terms in the film because of all the riding and stunt work, but that seemed like a significant departure from the book to me as well.
Gandolf heals him. It is gandolf magic not fresh air.
Here's my beef with this aspect of the movies: the whole idea of Saruman "possessing" Theoden is ridiculous. "Magic" in Tolkien's Middle Earth world-building simply can't be used that way; that's not how it works. At least not any magic the Istari would or could practice. You can pressure or persuade or charm, though you can take that too far and cross the line. But even Saruman didn't suggest actually trying to dominate the will and removing the autonomy of other sentient beings. That would have put him directly and unmistakably on Sauron's side and made him every bit as evil, and Sauron was pretty much unique in having any means (the Ring) to accomplish anything of the sort. (And as I recall, Sauron was a Maiar, way above the pay grade of any Istari.) If Saruman covets the Ring, it's because he's all about order and without the Ring he doesn't have the freaking ability to impose his will on others and achieve what he wants. If he can already do that, what does he need the One Ring for? Worse, the whole thing under Jackson's direction is played in a way that's hokey, so hammy, so utterly ridiculous and overdone that it turns my stomach. As others mentioned, people don't just put up with leaders who look like corpses and don't act at all like themselves. And then it has Theoden be a coward, directly forgetting anything Gandalf has tried to revive in him. Fleeing for cover when the numbers are and should be far too large for civilian populations (much less the population of Rohan's capital and presumably its largest city) to relocate any significant distance. Theoden essentially makes moving targets of his people as they flee, to their great harm. He puts the women and children right in the middle of it all. And if you look on any map of Middle Earth, Helms Deep is far closer to Saruman's forces. What kind of king or general does that? The whole idea of Helms Deep is to stop Saruman's forces there. Before they can get to and ravage the main parts of Rohan. This isn't complex. It needn't take hardly any explanation. No. This is just bad adaptation. And then there's the Aragorn and Eowyn subplot. I'm sorry...the guy is engaged. He isn't interested. He wouldn't engage; he wouldn't lead her on. It makes me fairly sick to see this nonsense. She is out of her league and she doesn't realize it at all. And in the books, she's really only interested because he seems really cool and is clearly a great military leader and because she has a bad case of hero worship as someone who is preoccupied with seeing battle as a soldier--not because she has any idea or even cares who he really is. But the other part of this sequence that I think is such a total waste of time is the warg fight and Aragorn supposedly being "lost" to the river. So incredibly badly written. So predictable and repetitive. So cringeworthy. And then there's Grima. What is with the makeup? People are seriously going to listen to this guy? Not for a second. Classic nonsense of creepy fantasy characters having to look like vampires, even when nobody would have put up with them if they had. Why does everything Jackson do have to be so in your face?
Sorry. Rant over. This is why, for all the things I love about Jackson's The Two Towers, I have a hard time dealing with its effect on my blood pressure.
I never saw him as a coward in the movie, and being now 51, and having encountered many types of hardship in my life, I understand him even more. This is not weakness or cowardice, but a damaged man in grief, tired and trying to limit his lost as much as possible. Yet, still want to be in the forefront and lead the battle, because he has that stuborness and know he's not for long into this world anyway. That's something a family leader can easily relate to, because that's something I would also do, to spare my kids and preserve what I care about. He also have the best lines in the movies. Only someone who don't know what grief, hardship, and loss really is would call what he did weakness.
It is not that he is suffering from grief, but he wants to avoid the border war becoming a full-blown one, and Tolkien would be sympathetic to the film version, for Tolkien saw the horrors of war. Remember, Tom Bombadil is sympathetic and a pacifist.
Yeah I wouldn't call him a coward. He's doing what he thinks is best to spare his people. He doesn't realise he's walking into a trap. They literally say as much in the film.
@@johnmarc1986 Theoden is trying to minimize loss, like a leader who is not a war hawk would do.
You know with the whole concept of contrasting original works to their adaptations I think the Toaru franchise might be up your alley.
I think the changes surrounding Eomer (his banishment) was to condense Eomer and Erkenbrand into just Eomer. This would wind up giving Eomer more of a role earlier on. Not sure to what extent this helped, as it means we didn't get to see him at all until the very end of the Helm's deep battle, but....
My read on the film is not that Theoden chooses the cowardly option by repositioning to Helm’s Deep, but the cautious option. He knows that conflict with the Uruk-Hai is certain, but he has little to no hope of beating them. So, rather than looking at his own army’s strength (cavalry), he looks for the most strategically defensive position. This is flawed logic, but he thinks it’s his best chance of defeating Saruman’s armies should they choose to assault his position.
I don’t see him as a coward, just a pessimist and distrustful of others after his bewitchment by Grima and Saruman.
It never occurred to me before, but the two character arcs - that of book Theoden and book Denethor - are the inverse of each other. Book Theoden starts weak and ends heroically; book Denethor starts as a courageous, if arrogant, leader. Book Denethor ends up broken and given over to defeat, but it's because he with some hubris took on Sauron via a palantir and lost, just as Aragorn did but was victorious.
Both characters were altered greatly for the movie.
This brings us to the core of one of the complaints people make about the movies, which concern the many departures there are from the books. I reckon many can accept the principle that a movie format cannot tell exactly the same story that appears in the book format because of issues of pacing. What many struggle with are the unnecessary changes that could have been included without compromising the pacing. People went to see the LOTR movies because they wanted to see the books turned into movies. They got this - but only partially. There are omissions that didn't have to be omitted, and changes that didn't have to be changed. I wonder if this is the typical hubris that says, "I want to make my own version, to put my own stamp on this." There's a lot of this in adaptations. Look at the upcoming War Of The Rohirrim, staring a minor character with no name in the book, elevated up to the lead role because this character is a woman written by a woman. Another girl boss, which has turned off many potential fans from this movie before it's even released, not because they hate women but because it's a major violation of what Tolkien wrote.
The core problem with Jackson's films as an adaptation is that he genuinely doesn't understand what he adapted.
I think it was definitely a time constraint for this scene. For this, you have to consider the whole picture of the production. It's not just a matter of screen time but also how much time is invested into the specifics of Rohirim's speech and dialogue, then having those lines reflected on screen by the actors, and then post-production subtitles. I think this was cut because it was maybe 45 seconds of dialogue at most, and the logistics outweighed the impact on the overall story arc at the time.
It's funny; Hollywood likes to pretend that "show, don't tell" is the best thing ever and an objectively better way to do movies... but you have a point that they just aren't very good at making dialogue-heavy scenes. They don't like doing them, most of the actors can't carry them (or heck, even remember them), the screenwriters can't write them, they're afraid it will drive off the audience, and all of that also builds into increased costs... and even the public is conditioned to see them as inherently bad and boring. Movies are a composite medium; how silly is it to strip the dialogue to the bare minimum? :D
I haven't read the books completely, but it is always funny to hear here that the lines that seem unnatural in the movies, are said at different moments and sometimes by different people.
In the movie, Eowyn wasn't swinging the sword wildly, she was doing a specific sword training routine. And inside the hall, that wouldn't be a dangerous place to do it, unless someone was stupid enough to get in the way. I trained with swords as part of my martial arts training, and the dojo was much smaller than the hall.
She was swinging the sword around, regardless of any alleged routine, and with people walking around her. That was stupid and dangerous, not to mention negligent. She, like everyone else, had been tasked with packing up and leaving for Helm's Deep. Not a time for horsing around and indulging in swordplay.
3:04 Where was Gondor?
Or should I say “Where was Gon-“
RIP Theoden King
Why cut book scenes, only to repeat their lines in fabricated scenes? To give Éowyn more screen time. She's much more present in the films than the book, appropriate for modern audiences.
It's all set up for "i am no man" in ROTK. That scene crawled so rings of power could run.
@@AJ0223 Rings of power runs?
@@AJ0223but that's also in the book
@histguy101 a bit more to it in the book let's not be disingenuous
@@AJ0223 Yes, she is a damsel in distress in the Jacksonverse, whilst in the books she is a shieldmaiden, the title implying she is already an experienced warrior (otherwise the title wouldn't make sense... and chickenhawks did not exist in those days).
The rearrange adding and removing of senses seem to be done to make the movie more relatable to a more modern and wider audience. As the book were written at a time just after the first and into the the 2nd world wars; and towards an audience he was familiar with. While the movies were made to be more accessible to people of the time they were made in.
That's not actually true, though. Tolkien mostly reflects the early middle ages, with a dash of industrial revolution mixed in. It's Jackson that evokes the Second World War - in the themes and the visuals, etc. How stupid do those Orc armies look? The visuals are taken straight from actual Nazi propaganda, even then filmed with amateur actors rather than actual soldiers (Hitler didn't have the soldiers on his side at that time; they're extras from the Party).
There's this weird thing Hollywood does where they love to parrot propaganda movies (after all, they were designed to have impact! Real wars hit very different), and created a vision of the world wars that is based on propaganda... and they just keep going, after all those decades.
I don't think theses scenes where cut for time but cut for character. Tolkien was writing an English Mythology like the Iliad and Odyssey and like those it was focused on plot not character. Jason had no character arc, nor did Achilles, or any of the great Greek Heroes. As such neither did any of the men of Middle Earth. Some Fell to the workings enemy, and some awoke from those same workings, but they where as they started. The Falls and the awakenings where born from their existing character. Jackson wanted to make a modern story so he made adjustments to give nearly everyone a character arc.
I think the Writers of Rohan were valiant, and I love the Theoden we got, but I do not recognize the man from the books when I watch the movie.
I do see how changes made for the movie were done to create character arcs that are more complete, and I understand how this can make a movie seem better. In some cases, this can help to overcome the lack of narrative in films, or the lack of seeing things through a characters eyes or hearing their thoughts. And I do think the films are very good as films. Nevertheless, I was terribly disappointed in the story written for Theoden, both on its own and with how this impacted the viewer's perspective of Aragorn. Theoden in the books, as you point out, once Grima's influence was removed was not cowardly, and not indecisive. The actions he took made sense. Falling back on Helm's deep was a deliberate decision that made great military sense - it was a stronghold built for precisely that purpose. But for the explosives of Saruman, they probably would have held out as well. There was no need to bring elves into the battle, he had a good amount of troops there at the fortress. To me, this was a set of slights on the character and I didn't see any reason for it when I watched the film. The negative impact on Aragorn was palpable. Theoden was important as a character because we use him as a basis for comparison when judging Denethor - and Aragorn. By making Theoden as substandard as they did, for me at least, it lessened the value of Aragorn, who, in the books, is even more kingly, heroic, and noble. Aragorn is the kind of man that even kings like Theoden will serve - thus we judge him by those who would follow him.. And the Denethor of the films was so vile he was almost a caricature. After how wonderful the first film was, the two towers held a lot of disappointment for me. My only real complaint with the first film was again, with how Aragorn was portrayed - the self-doubter of the films was a far cry from the staunch resolve we see in the Aragorn on the page. He has literally been learning and training himself on how to fight Sauron and his servants for longer than most men have been alive by the time of the Fellowship. All to reach the point of going to war with Sauron. He should have left Rivendell with Anduril. Sorry, this all came back to me in a rush... Very much appreciate your videos, keep up the great work!
The cleansing/revival of the king in the movie is better, but going to helms deep is a strategic move of strength.
So, about added scenes. I think Jackson's team understands that movie is a visual art, and many things better be showed, not telled. I'm not sure how viewer could get all the necessary disgust do Wormtongue in such short timespan as added scene of Eowyn's mourning of Theodred. As for Aomer being banished not prisoned I think it's to put more events into one character, which viewers easily visually recognise, rather than splitting story bits between Aeomer and Erkenbrand.
This is the part of TTT when I kept gritting my teeth. Was everyone in Meduseld dumb, not to think it weird that their lord had been deteriorating so terribly? Seriously? It went far beyond usual physical or mental decline (not to mention Gríma's own looks of a fresh corpse), and then come this Gandalf type with some sus strangers and starts doing weird stuff aimed at their lord, who starts writhing on his throne, and no-one moves to stop Gandalf? How does this make sense? And when Saruman is exorcised, Gandalf becomes the greatest plastic surgeon and dentist in Middle-Earth, restoring Theoden to, what? a man in his fifties? Why did Jackson have to overdo this scene, yet again?
And then comes "Theoden the coward"... no, we did NOT need this "arc" because we already _have_ a reluctant hero in the movies in Aragorn, and with the Ents, and Gondor, because everyone has to be led by their hand and are unable to make tough decisions on their own unless someone comes and makes them to. How people don't see the repetitiveness of these scenarios is beyond me.
That said, these changes disappointed me even more for the great Rohirric aesthetics, and Bernard Hill was a great cast. I just wish he hadn't been robbed of his heroic moments 😞
I just realized that if Gandalf could exorcise Theoden (which of course an ANGEL can do, which is why priests call on Michael and Gabriel), then he could have cured Gollum and Frodo of the Ring's influence (exorcism means ridding one of a demon's influence, not just possession), without them going to Valinor. Also, if Theoden regenerated immediately (I think it takes longer after one has an exorcism, as victims don't regain weight they lost immediately), wouldn't Gollum have turned back to Smeagol if Gandalf exorcised him? To be fair, it is implied the people of Edoras fear Grima, and also rapid degeneration can be caused by leprosy (and stress can exacerbate such things), or opium (which would have been used before tobacco was discovered). The royal guard didn't stop Gandalf because they needed to see what was happening.
@@rikhuravidansker Neither leprosy nor opium is a thing in Middle-Earth (while tobacco is), and even if they were, neither would have had such an effect without people knowing for a long time what was going on with Theoden. After all, look out some leprosy pictures, if you can stomach it.
By the way, exorcism in the way depicted in the movie doesn't exist in Middle-Earth, either, and even if it did, it would hardly go by the same rules as in our world. And it definitely wouldn't remove the influence of the Ring, as it's an addiction-like corruption.
@@irena4545 I meant Theoden looks like he is in the early stages of leprosy, and drugs don't alter your physical appearance IMMEDATELY. Thus when people see Theoden they would assume he has had leprosy or was using opium for a while; also, influenza doesn't appear in the Legendarium but it MUST exist.
Tolkien was a Catholic and would have believed in exorcisms to eliminate demonic influence (not just spirits), like the Ring's addiction: demonic influence can be influencing emotions, and I DON'T mean possession.
@@rikhuravidanskerI'm not necessarily sure being a catholic makes you partial to exorcisms. People who are into exorcisms are about as mainstream to catholics as Spanish Inquisitors.
When it comes to Tolkien his vision appears to be that good does not triumph over evil but that good men must persevere until evil defeats itself. Beating baddies with flashy magical exorcisms due to divine intervention wouldn't have communicated that.
This is still my biggest gripe with the movies, too much ostentative hocus pocus where the 'magic' in Tolkiens work is usually much more subtle and tied to atmosphere and emotions unlike Peter Jackson, the conjuror of cheap CGI movie magic, his tricks.
For anyone wanting to know the back story of the war of the Rohirrim with Saruman (which Tolkien detailed, published in Unfinished Tales), Darth Gandalf has a series called War in middle earth inwhich he explains all the wars of legenderium.
I really hate to say it, but you are correct. But there is one thing Peter Jackson and his writers simply do not seem to have any understanding of is strategy and tactics, because the whole fleeing to Helm's Deep simply makes no sense. That's fleeing towards the enemy. It would have been better if kept it the way it was done in the novel. That would have been more realistic.
Yeah. Tolkien gave real thought about everything feeling realistic. Leaders try to make the best decision they can. (Even denethor up to the very end) Like it's not 10000 against 200. No one would survive that.(Isildur's 200 were killed by about 2000 orcs. Worth mentioning they were on lower ground and it seems that if they were on hight ground their charge would've made a difference)
It's more like 10000 against 2000 in the novel and in the end they are saved by the arrival of Gandalf and Erkenbrand's 1000 (on high ground lol)
@@saeedshahbazian9889 At the time Gandalf and Erkenbrand arrived Saruman's forces were already broken. This was an army which was ill equipped for a siege and had overconfident but inexperinced commanders. They had ladders, but those should have been used assaulting Edoras after the army of Rohan had been destroyed in a field battle. Saruman's forces only managed to break the wall because they had explosives. They also made many mistakes. They did not secure their rear, so that even without Theoden's charge Erkenbrand's surprising arrival would have broken them.
@@saeedshahbazian9889 It is not stated how many people there were at the Third Battle of Helm's Deep (the appendices speak of two previous battles), but as both Edoras and Helm's Deep are cities, both should have populations of 20,000 each (since the Rohirrim are relatively few: since they are implied to be semi-nomadic and thus would be less urbanized, both cities would be spread out, so each could have a population of 75,000 each). Whilst cities in those days had urban farms they STILL would have relied on outside farms for a food surplus in times of need, and 90% of people were farmers before industrialization: thus each city and the surrounding farmland (90 times the size of the city), would have had 68 million 25,000 people each, which reminds one of the semi-nomadic Mound Builders. Thus Isengard would have hundreds of thousands of soldiers (being Uruk-hai, Dunlendings, mercenaries, and Haradrim like the squint-eyed southerner), but Helm's Deep would have an equal number, since the Rohirric military would be scattered.
@rikhuravidansker I think you mean the first two battles of the fords of Isen.
All of Rohan military is 100 Eoreds at the time of Theoden, 12000 riders.
Also, some numbers are given. Erkenbrand had about 1000. Theoden had a bout a 1000 and Gamling had another 1000 (mostly old or young) with him at helms deep.
@@saeedshahbazian9889 Those were numbers of Theoden's personal calvary divisions: Rohan is feudal. Also, the military is spread out.
The appendices describe two previous battles at Helm's Deep: the first one being the battle the fortress was built for, and the second the battle described in "The War of the Rohirrim." I was merely deconstructing how many people Rohan could theoretically support before industrialization: whilst I did not take the Great Plague into account, humans reproduce exponentially, so Rohan would only be mostly empty if nearly all the Rohirrim had been wiped out, which would result in needing 300 years to recover.
For all the questionable changes we still got one of the most impressive visuals in the whole trilogy: Theoden's transformation.
On Change #1, wouldn't Hama recognize Gandalf as who he is exactly, not just as a wizard? And wouldn't Gandalf be able to speak at least a bit of their language? Also, it seems like anyone in Rohan would easily recognize Shadowfax straight away, with them being generational horse-folk.
The scene where Wormtongue is "being creepy" with Eowyn is the change that I despise the most. Because the lines that Grima speaks to her are taken from Gandalf, they are words he speaks in the House of Healing toward the end of the Return of the King, but giving those lines to Grima here completely changes the very meaning and intent of them. I love these films but that change is one I just don't like.
Theoden's arc in the books are mostly aligned with the concept of Northern courage (Rohirrim are originally Northmen)
The fact that he is always first in war and seeking to end the threat to his people even when the chances are slim to be slim to none.
Gandalf advises Theoden to seek shelter with the other noncombatant, but he says something to the message of no you dont know your power in healing; I will lead the army.
EDIT I write the comments as I listen. Otherwise, I would forget lol. It is mentioned in the video
Gimli’s and Eomer’s friendly rivalry is one of my favorite elements of the trilogy.
Damn, extra long episode this week!
Time is rarely the reason to move things around. Keep in mind, most of the films were filmed exactly to the book, and then altered halfway through the day, so they'd reshoot certain scenes from that morning or the day before, all the time. It was such a headache that often if a character is looking down, the actor is looking at the a script that was changed for the ninth time in the past 48 hours.
No, they were shifted around due to PACING. The animated movies that noone talks about are exact to the book, which while listening/reading are AMAZING, as films are clunky and boring. I watched only about 15 minutes and wanting to claw my eyes out, they were so bad. Having guards stop them intterupts the music and the flow of the scenes, when they can do it all of that in a condense hall scene. Also the fight makes it more dramatic, and they always add drama to films--it's why they're torches instead of lamps cuz they look better, and there's fire in war instead of the reality of no fire. They talk a little bit about pacing for the film vs movie in the behind the scenes and show Hugo Weaving quoting the poem about the ring there, and go over how much reshooting they had to do over and over again.
They also changed things because Tolkien does something that doesn't work for modern audiences: show vs tell. Tolkien doesn't show how Grima must have been after Eowyn, they show it with that scene. They don't just tell us Theodred died, they show it. That's a big change in not only movies from the 1950s but books as well. Many scenes Tolkien does would never be allowed in publishing today because of show vs telling.
I really liked the "made up" scene of Wormtongue creeping on Eowyn. In the same way that Theoden's character coward to hero journey makes him a more compelling figure, the added scenes makes Worntongue a more despicable bad guy. In fact I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit when he touched her. Gross!
One does not simply walk into Edoras.
So I actually watched the movies first and then read the books; and I'm gonna say the books are a bit better. But like you always say Jackson did a great job making this a movie, because the amount of detail Tolkien even puts in a darn tree would be impossible to put into movie format. And even as someone who likes the books more, this is gonna be crazy, the two twoers is my favorite movie, I love how they made Rohan even if it's not completely right. And for those of you who's only read the books or watched the movie, and not both, Fact of Fantasy does a great job going in detail but really the movie is quite similar to the book. But ya, really great episode, and love the series!
Thanks for your support!
@@factorfantasyweekly I am more bothered by the fact there isn't farmland to the horizon surrounding Edoras, as 90% of people were farmers and thus farmland surrounding a city would be 90 times bigger than the city.
Theoden is one of my favorite characters in the books, I’ve been waiting for this episode😂
What are your thoughts on his movie version? 👀
@ I love his portrayal by Bernard Hill, he does an excellent job. And his speech at the battle of Minas Tirith in the Pelanor fields always gives me chills.
Bernard Hill absolutely crushed it 🙏🏼♥️
@@factorfantasyweekly he will be missed!
@@bengeisler102 The commentaries are fantastic in adding even more: they choreographed the "sword clashing down the line" by Theoden assuming Hill was right handed. He wasn't! Hill was terrified at doing it with non dominant arm but he managed! 😊
It's 2 totally differently themed tales at this point, although I like them both.
Regarding Gandalf riding off to find Eomer, Jackson totally stole that bit from Bakshi! 😁
Wait, are you serious? Bakshi showed that?
@jaredwalley5692 I was referring to the plot aspect rather than the visuals, but yes.
Both Bakshi and Jackson had Eomer riding around Rohan with an army of horsemen, rather than being in prison in Edoras.
Well the answer of why to move things from one part to another seems obvious doesn't it? In a book authors often meander and you have to read, sometimes reread what was written to try to understand what they meant. What an author writes, and what they say aren't always the same thing. With a movie you have to deliver your message in a conscience clear way. They obviously thought that this delivery better conveyed the message they were trying to communicate.
The character changes of Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir were the three things that made the "Two Towers" the least liked film of the trilogy for me. I felt so sorry, that Theoden was deprived of his glorious victory at Helms Deep. I love it so much in the book when Theoden answers "Nay, Gandalf, you do not know your own skill in healing ... I myself will go to war..." when asked to stay behind and flee to Dunharrow instead of going to battle to the Fords of Isen.
I understand, that PJ wanted to have a more dynamic character development, to let the characters in the movie evolve to the point where they already were in the books. For the audience to feel this dynamic and the changes that happen during the events of the books.
But I would have liked it more if he had stayed closer to the books.
Edit: I just have to add: Nontheless TT it is a splendid movie and I absolutely love and adore the depiction of Rohan from the first impression over the endless rolling grassland to the magnificence of Edoras and Meduseld to the insanely detailed costumes and Shores breathtaking epic music. You really feel the love and comittment of everyone who was involved in the trilogy project. One might not agree with every decision taken and every alteration made but it is still - and will always be - a masterpiece!
You don't have to make Theoden an idiot to give him a character arc. The guy is old and has been under the pressures of a monarch for decades. His people have been harried by Saruman's forces for years, but he was shut up at home and didn't recognize the scale of the threat and has had no help. It's like he's been living in a bad dream and none of it seemed quite real until suddenly...bam. His son is dead and his country is being invaded and he's at odds with his nephew. He's afraid he's been ineffective and will be seen as a bad leader or even the last leader of a free Rohan and that his country will perish on his watch. He's sick with age and despair and guilt that his complacency has been, at least in some part, responsible for all of this. And possession just means none of it was him in the first place. Which doesn't say anything about who Theoden is or where he is. No. It's more like he's been hypnotized. And once Gandalf breaks that hold, he still hasn't undone all the damage. This happened because Theoden was susceptible to Grima's claims that Gandalf is nothing more than a troublemaker, that Eomer is just a warmonger who's trying to make a name for himself at the expense of Theoden and the people, that Rohan has been abandoned and is without help, that Gandalf can't be trusted because he's had dealings with Galadriel, that Grima should be allowed to take care of him and take care of things for him. Grima has controlled Theoden by capitalizing on his uncertainty and despair and emphasizing his age and impotence, by alienating him from anyone who might dispute what Grima tells him, and by curating what Theoden knows and is told. Saruman was counting on Grima to delay Theoden's response until it was too late to make an effective stand. Theoden's grasp on hope is still somewhat tenuous in early days when Gandalf leaves; we see that during the long night of the siege when Theoden is, again, tempted to despair and questions Gandalf's counsel and Aragorn has to encourage of him. Right there is the arc, and Theoden's confidence increases as Gandalf brings the Huorns and as Saruman is overthrown, so that when Aragorn asks him to send aid to Gondor? Theoden is ready to do so. It's all built into the canon story. It doesn't have to be manufactured.
Regarding the question of why cut things for time if you’re then going to use those lines in a scene that’s been fabricated whole cloth - I think that’s an oversimplification; some stuff probably isn’t being cut for time, but because what works on the page doesn’t work on the screen, in which case it’s a shame to waste things from that content that still does work and can be appropriated for another scene. Theres also the issue you brought up about altering some character arcs to serve different purposes, in which case some scenes have to be cut or altered to make it work and some other scenes created for the same; again, it’s a shame to waste good content by leaving it cut if it can be made to work given other context, so the lines get transposed to other scenes, given to different characters, etc.
I agree with Sumatural below that I never saw Theoden's decision as cowardice. If anything, Gandalf's advice "ride out and meet them" was crazy. Meet 10,000 orcs with a few hundred horsemen in the open? Now that would have been a slaughter! Nor was Helm's Deep a massacre as predicted by Gandalf.
I don't remember so much from the books, but in the movies at least, Gandalf looks rather stupid on occasion. But I guess all's well that ends well, eh?
As I always say, both books and movies are great... as is your analysis.
Giving the charitable interpretation, Gandalf could have been urging Theoden to marshall his forces on the move and then meet the uruk army in the field when he had gathered his strength. As for Helm's Deep being a massacre, without the elves and Gandalf's timely arrival--neither of which factored into Theoden's decision--it would have been just that.
@@HornoftheMark Still better than being out in the open. If they had met the orc army in the open before they'd suffered huge losses at Helm's Deep, it would have been pretty iffy.
They extended and restructured the Rohan story, e.g. including Theodred and moving Eomers lines, to get more context for the final battle.
"A staff in the hand of a wizard is more than a walking stick."
"You would not part an old man from his walking stick."
I see what Jackson (possibly) did there...😂
Actually it paraphrases what Aragorn says right before Hama says that.
@phosphorus4 ah, okay.
This again shows how Jackson has 0 sense of scale. According to the map by Christopher Tolkien it is about 300 miles from Lothlórien to Helm’s Deep, about 50 miles from Edoras to Helm’s Deep and about 100 miles from Helm’s Deep to Isengart. These measurements are surely not fully correct (and Christopher Tolkien himself admitted that he did not place Helm’s Deep in the exact location his father intended). But in Jackson’s mind it somehow makes sense that Theoden leaves for Helm’s Deep on horses, which is 50 miles away, while Grima leaves for Isengart, which is 150 miles away, Saruman mobilizes his army upon his message (mobilizing an army would realistically take a few days even if everything is prepared already) and has this army (mostly on foot and in the movies including heavy siege equipment) take the 100 miles to Helm’s Deep, and still arrive at around the same time as Theoden. Meanwhile somehow Lothlórien manages to send reinforcements over just 300 miles ...
I only knew of some of the changes so now I have a better understanding of them.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN IM CAUGHT UP? WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH MYSELF NOW
💀
I know people love Peter Jackson's adaptation stunning visuals and superb acting, great shots but I think he meddles around too much in the motivations and characters which changes the meanings of the work as a whole and of course it works he has changed the story so much it's not what Tolkin intended. People tend to draw the wrong conclusions and honestly after reading The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, by Christopher Tolkin I have my doubts JRR Tolkin would have approved.
Oh, I highly doubt Tolkien would have approved. Doesn’t mean the movies are bad, but they’re not accurate. So (as probably any author would be) Tolkien would probably not like that they changed HIS invention.
@@factorfantasyweekly I didn't say the movies were bad... I just think Peter Jackson was too creative with his adaptation. I have the extended edition myself with the original bookends. (edit) They were not as good as the books.
Tolkien would not have verbally liked the movies.
Much like Christopher he would have grumbled but I think he would accept them in the end.
@@Mr_Timi1Can you name any film adaptions from fictional novels that are more faithfully and closely adapted?
@@Mr_Timi1i suspect studio involvement meant he couldn't just do a completely faithful adaptation.
I used to watch this series, but for some reason it stopped getting recomended to me around the end of FOTR.. glad you still keep up the great work..
Oh no! Well welcome back 🙏🏼 we still have lots more book to get through!
@@factorfantasyweekly By the way, Theoden said Grima was killing him with "leechcraft and potions," implying what happened to Charles II (and George Washington but with only the leeches), happened to Theoden for years, with Theoden not dying because it was over a period of time. In his weakened state, he would be more susceptible to Grima due to being too physically stressed to make rational counterarguments (and he trusted Grima). Interesting, since Theoden criticized Grima's medical treatment of him, this implies Theoden learned of germ theory when he was raised by Elrond!
People actually think that he was a coward? He was trying to save the people he was king of from being killed so took the smartest course in his mind...
Butchered? You gave me chills sir!
How long left until Helms Deep, pleaser how long? I must see my favorite siege battle.
Also why do I feel like the Siege of Helms Deep is probably a lot more boring than it is in the movie? No offence to the book I just feel like it probably was a lot more slower pace and a lot more like an actual siege.
Yea it might be a little anticlimactic as Tolkien generally didn’t go into details describing fight sequences. That left a lot of room for the film to expand on the actually choreography of the fight.
Not sure how long until then as it can be unpredictable. 👀 I haven’t looked that far ahead yet.
@@factorfantasyweekly "Yea it might be a little anticlimactic as Tolkien generally didn’t go into details describing fight sequences."
Like how The Battle of Five Armies is all but non-existent in The Hobbit?
Bingo 😂 Tolkien was like “how can I avoid writing a battle…. Hmm let’s just knock out Bilbo”
The Battle of Helm's Deep is a single chapter in the book. It doesn't drag on. You don't see each and every minor action occurring around the walls the way you do in the film. The Battle of Helm's Deep takes up more than 20% of the film's run time, while the battle in the book takes only one chapter out of 21.
@@SuStelTrue, but to be fair, 6 of those chapters were adapted in the first and third movie.
I love the series. thank you for your work
Just like the Dune movies from Dennis - always talking about not being able to fit a book into one movie, and then putting scenes in the movie not from the book.
Read along with me! 📖 Claim “The Two Towers” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/twotowers 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Peter Jackson's story telling is a bit clunky compared to the books, but making movies is different from writing books, and he wanted to appeal to a wider audience than the typical Tolkien fan.
This is scene that played out better as the movie adaptation. Ive read the book 3 times and watched the movie 300x
I hated "No, I'm the KING 😤" lines in the book. Always came off as childish.
Yea I was a bit taken aback by that. I mean, I’m all for Aragorn loving his heritage and taking the shards of Narsil with him everywhere until Anduril is made. But this part in Edoras makes him seem immature when he’s kinda supposed to be the mature guy. Even Gandalf is fed up with it. 😂
I don't think it's fair to accuse movie Theoden of cowardice. Deep down, Theoden doesn't feel himself worthy to be king and compares himself unfavourably with great kings of the past like Eorl the Young, Helm Hammerhand and even his father Thengel. It's this sense of inferiority that makes him a weak and indecisive leader, not cowardice. Thanks to powerful support and encouragement from Aragorn and Gandalf (including the power of Narya) he does manage to rise up and become the king he wanted to be.
Why didn't someone take out Grima when they started noticing the bad changes in Theoden....he should have had an unfortunate accident at some point...
Whilst part of me wants to kiss Peter Jackson's feet (in a general broad view sort of way) this scene highlights one the reasons that he makes me want to ARRRRRGH!!!
PJ's approach to Saruman was just plain WRIONG in so many ways. He was NOTHING LIKE as powerful as he is depicted in the film (in fact it would be plain RIDICULOUS to be able to do and know things that SAURON DIDN'T!!)
Altho Tolkien was not noted for his subtlety in many ways, the film version took out much that WAS in LotR. The difficulties in trying to go over Caradhras was portrayed in the film as being down to Saruman, but the book specifically makes the point that there are some dark things in the world that have nothing to do with SAURON (or Saruman!) and that Caradhras as an entity more than just a large lump of rock fell into that category.
Jump to Meduseld. The WHOLE POINT that Tolkien was making about Theoden was the drip drip damage that somebody who has a person's ear can do WITHOUT MAGIC! Whilst Wormtongue most certainly WAS Saruman's creature, his job was to drive a wedge between Theoden and clear thinking people so that he wouldn't be a threat to Saruman's plans.
Tolkien's WHOLE POINT was that you didn't need a magic wand (or staff), or be a physically powerful person, to do a whole lot of damage.
Also saw no good reason why they changed the original version of Wormtongue's flight where he was trying to wheedle himself out of going to war and into being left in charge of Theoden's goodies, by claiming to be the 'only person who cared' about the king. Assuming that Theoden WOULDN'T be going to war himself he was put in a difficult position when he was told that he COUKD stay by the king (which, oh whoops, would mean going to war by his side) or taking a horse and running back to Saruman and never darkening their doors again.
Seems to me this makes a lot more sense than what ended up in the film, and I have NO IDEA what prompted PJ to change a perfectly good exit.
As I said, deeply torn between thinking PJ is a genius and wanting to kick him. FIRMLY!
IMO, Denethor was much, much, more crippled by Peter Jackson adaptation...
Where's the BEARD??? :D
Time for some blasphemy. I read the books when I was young and just this year, and I wholeheartedly prefer the movies over the books by a longshot. Meanwhile....I wasn't that big a fan of the recent Dune movies(they weren't bad just a disappointment as a reader) but also LOVE the Dune books far more than LOTR.
This is one of my most hated parts of the films. Along with the change in Faramir and the making of Treebeard into an easily manipulated idiot. The decision to emphasize the heroism of Aragorn by demoting the heroism of almost every other character is a shallow, cheap trick and completely contrary to the spirit of the books.
I like the made up moments, they are tastefully done and better fit the film format.
I do agree that they missed some good plot opportunities though
Jarl Balgruuf the Greater (I mean King Theoden 😂) is so much better in the book…along with most characters.
Book-to-film adaptations are doomed without flexibility. Some concepts would take too long to establish (even in a trilogy). The real test is if the overall story can be conveyed without altering the core meanings and themes. This means that some film characters may be altered to fulfill the purpose of multiple book characters. It also means that one scene may need to fulfill the purpose of multiple scenes in the book(s).
I do not get upset at film adaptations as long as it is clear that the director understood the material and did their best to honor the intent of the author. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. However, the LOTR movies are a great example of how to be true to the books without being handcuffed by specific examples of lore. Just keep in mind that Peter Jackson had to mislead the studio executives to get this done.
What a treasure these movies are.
Jackson worked off 3 Novels of course there are things that play better on film
The LOTR films aren't anywhere near as bad for the changes made as The Hobbit. It's a long story and Jackson does well to make the LOTR his own piece of art (cinema is an art form). But the the studios got greedy and the Hobbit is just too long and far too unnecessary. It could have been two shorter films and saved us a third long film for such a short and simple book!
You're right. The Lord of the Rings is worse than The Hobbit.
Mad props to Jackson’s film version of Theoden. After Gandalf & Aragorn, he’d next in line whom I would charge into war with.
For the late great Bernard Hill - “Hail, the victorious dead!”