Want to get into the Lord of the Rings for the first time OR simply rediscover Middle Earth in a whole new way? 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE with my code:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
@gingerbaker_toad696 Did you not hear him say, at the beginning of the video, that he thinks that these movies are one of the best of all time? And I’m not even going to say that I very strongly disagree with him on that because they are Hollywood’s worst films ever made. Also, are you guys getting paid by Warner Brother’s, New Line Cinema, and Fox/Disney to keep protecting Jackson’s moronic lotr trilogy like creepy Jackson apologists that you all are? It’s getting so annoying and boring, and a ton of people are realizing that you guys are extremely hypocritical.
You forgot to mention in the books that the basket of goodies Farmer Maggot’s wife gave them included mushrooms, and that Farmer Maggot teased Frodo by mentioning he hadn’t forgotten Frodo’s stealing his mushrooms as a youngster. I loved that detail in the books, as it showed Farmer Maggot’s humour.
It was hilarious how Farmer Maggot kept to himself that he remembered Frodo as a mushroom thieving rascal... until much later when he good-naturedly said something like, "...I reckon you still have a taste for mushrooms...."
One change I don't care for in the movie is that Merry and Pippin essentially bungle their way into Frodo's adventure rather than being friends who were helping Frodo out of loyalty all along and had actually figured out Frodo's real plan before Frodo told them.
Well, I think that was due to the changes in the movie. There Frodo never made any plans but started out to Bree and Rivendell very spontaneously. So there was no opportunity for Merry and Pippin to guess and anticipate what he was doing and to help him out of loyalty. A meeting by chance was quite a good option to bring the four hobbits together.
@@kylemarkloff4451 as a flow on answer,, of case ,, A,B,C,D.. the 3 main things are ,,.. as we of ye olde 1973 mass population// teacher was nspired by british colonial dogma of Tolkien using Tom Bombadil as impersonator of Frodo,, so.as this is a Spoiler for Amazons Rongz off Power ,,.. with the colonial use of Tom as G.O.A.T. we were informed ,,rmed that tom as Narnia link,, we were t aught & receite ... d the Hobbit... as a daily comprehention,,,2,, Bilbo as writer of the tale , until q Frdood o takes hipodf the ring
They didn’t have to join. They had many times we’re it was clear this would be dangerous, and they didn’t have to come. But they chose to go with Frodo. They even sacrifice themselves to help him get away. Sounds like loyalty to me.
8:37 Correction. You claim that Merry and Pippin don't know why Frodo is leaving the Shire. The reader think that they doesn't know anything, only Sam. But later, in Crickhollow, in the chapter "A Conspiracy Unmasked", it turns out that Sam, Merry and Pippin have long conspired against Frodo, and this in all good intentions. Merry has known about the ring since 18 years back, and they sense that sooner or later Frodo will go after Bilbo. Over time, they also find out that the ring is extraordinary, and something to be handled with great care. They connect Frodo's departure plans and his possession of the ring, and plan to accompany him as support, all to facilitate and aid him in the adventures to come. But Frodo learns about this only in Crickhollow, the same night he intends to reveal that he does not plan to settle there at all - which the other hobbits have already understood.
Also, in the book Orthanc scene, Saruman doesn't reveal to Gandalf that he owns a Palantir and never says he wants to join with Sauron. Indeed, in the book we are led to believe that Saruman simply wants to capture the ring for himself. Gandalf only realises that the stone is a Palantir when Pippin looks into it at the end of their Two Towers (!) story, and only then it becomes clear that he was corrupted into evil by Sauron.
@@pavelslama5543Well, it's more like Saruman is publically aligned with Sauron while secretly trying to find the One Ring to use for himself. Sauron suspects the obvious treachary which leads to Saruman throwing away all his armies at Helms Deep because he believes the ring is there, and he knows he can't actually stand against Sauron without it.
The Shire to Bree are my favourite parts of the whole story. I love re reading those parts. The Ringwraith crawling towards the Hobbits is terrifying. Also, slight correction. Farmer Maggot does have a face in the movies, its the scene where his dog retreats into the house and he says 'they're up in Hobbiton, that way!'
as someone who is reading the books for the first time, and has watched the movies countless times, it's nice to hear a side by side, especially one this detailed! fun reliving these moments!
Thank you so much for this! It brings back questions and inferences that I drew as a 9-year-old well more than 60 years ago. Riding on a country school bus i immersed myself in Frodo, Gandalf, and many others. Your attention to detail reminds me how I also loved, and mentally catalogued, the intricacies and richness of these books. Thanks again
1 thing I always remember about the book/movie is that you spend 150 pages in the Shire, getting to know them. You feel you're with them. The movie, "We gotta get it moving, let's go."
I can forgive many of the changes Jackson made to the trilogy, but the one that was most unforgivable one - which I assume you'll cover in a future episode - was Arwen taking the glory of carrying Frodo across the river and taking credit for what Elrond and Gandalf did to the Black Riders with it. This scene is so pivotal to Frodo's character and tells us (the reader) why he is the one carrying the ring, before they even met Elrond and form the fellowship. With it altered, all we've heard (from people who didn't read the book) is that Frodo did nothing and was a weak character and Sam should have taken the ring etc. Hoping you do this injustice it's proper insight. Looking froward to watching it. Great videos.
Tolkien put Eowyn and Galadriel as the central strong females. In the modern era this is not sufficiently balanced so Jacksons team also developed more scenes with Arwen.
@@hallstewart More scenes is fine. Altering multiple central plot points in the process though? There's no excuse. As stated in my original comment, the scene was pivotal in showing Frodo's strength of character.
@@Siosal01 While I would agree that Frodo's characterization is generally lacking in the movie, hallstewart did provide you with a reason why changes were made to that scene. Not an excuse, a reason. You can criticize that decision and the underlying reasoning, though, but not really deny its existence :P
Something very important to bring up- there's a complicated narrative in regard to Saruman's allegiance to Sauron as expressed in the books. The movies portray him as a wholesale servant of Sauron with absolute obedience, but it's not quite that way in the books. Saruman's motive for serving Sauron is to really try and actually manipulate him in order to use Sauron for his own ends. The reality of that is Sauron is most blatantly aware of Saruman's attempts to use him and it only makes Saruman more of a pawn in Sauron's eyes. Saruman also is somewhat blind by his own pride to the risk of building an army in challenge of Sauron, but at the same time seems to be precariously aware of the huge gamble he is running if he cannot find the ring.
They didn't outright say it. But the whole saurmon made a whole orc army to specifically bring the ring to HIM basically cements him as not a true servant of sauron and only ever in it for his own power
@zachthecool4321, yeah there’s also a minor part from the books that isn’t included in the film, where the Mouth of Sauron is making demands to Gandalf, and specifically denounces Saruman for his treachery
Saruman was arrogant and thought that he is above the corrupting influence, that it is OK to serve good by evil means. The other white council members: Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel did understand they could not fight evil with evil which led to the long planned decision to destroy the ring at the council in Rivendell. The big risk was Denethor and Boromir also taking the path of evil. It’s no coincide that both Saruman and Denethor had palantir and therefore strongly implied that Sauron caused their corruption this way.
The movie provides enough context, a little bit directly, and plenty more through subtext to be inferred and dots connected by the viewer. I think most adult viewers easily pick up on these things, as well as many children who are avid readers or movie fanatics and therefore familiar with common story-telling tropes and archetypes. I know at least that when I was about the age of 12 and seeing these movies for the first time in theaters, I had no trouble inferring most of Sarumon's unspoken goals and true motivations. And while the films don't really give any indication that Sauron has been fully aware from the start of Sarumon's true motivations, desires, and intentions (as far as I recall) I still always had the impression that he was at the very least, partially-aware, or aware that this version of Sarumon had the potential to end up on that path with those intentions, as one possible branch of reality/fate. These weren't blind assumptions either; while not specifically indicated in the films, we are provided more general insight and impressions of Sauron and his abilities and overall awareness. We are presented with a very powerful and ancient entity, with supernatural abilities and some degree of immortality, which seems to be far beyond the kind of immortality experienced by the elves. We are told that he is basically the supreme bad guy of this universe, out-surviving even his prior master, the OG #1 Dark Lord, until he was fully defeated and banished from that world and entire plane of reality. We are shown that even Gandalf harbors a significant degree of fear and uncertainty of Sauron, and we are basically met with all of this information and context within the first few minutes of the first film. I think it's fair to say that the viewer is even given the impression that he is an almost omniscient entity in this world. The last main thing which leads the viewer to suspect that he is certainly at least somewhat aware of Sarumon's plans, activities, and inner desires - and likely has the ability to keep a close eye on Sarumon, that comes in The Two Towers when we begin to learn a bit about the Palantirs and the kind of insight and awareness that they can facilitate. Sarumon shows Gandalf how he can use his Palantir to kind of check-in on and monitor Sauron as well as communicate with him. And while we aren't shown that Sauron is able to redial Sarumon's Palantir and do the same, if not more, right back on the same phone line to Sarumon, I think the viewer can safely assume that while viewing The Two Towers. But by The Return of the King though, we are finally explicitly shown Sauron using the Palantirs in such a manner over Pippin (damn fool of a Took!) but this time it is conveyed to the viewer just how deep Sauron can dig into the mind of a Palantir-owner and siphon out detailed information, deep secrets, and even forcibly extract specific information that might not be freely floating about one's mind or recent memory, by employing a kind of telepathic interrogation. At that point in the film trilogy we then know for sure that Sauron knew entirely everything the whole time concerning Isengard and it's master. He was just acting unaware, giving Sarumon a false sense of power and psychological/intellectual superiority, allowing Sarumon's plans to unfold because most of his actions leading up to just prior to an actual coup attempt would allign and support Sauron's own plans and needs, and those plans which did not perfectly allign could be altered to do so by using the Palantirs to manipulate Sarumon's subconscious, bending his will and his plans to better suit Sauron's immediate and long-term needs. So while the movies don't make a point of extensively spelling put all of those inner driving forces behind Sauron and Sarumon like the books do, I feel there is enough context and indications in the film to make it pretty discernable or inferable what the inner-motivations and actual likely intentions of these villains are, and just how extensive the level of Sauron's awareness was, over both Sarumon and Middle-Earth at large. *But holy Balrog's breath!!!* I did not intend to write a whole university dissertation in response to your comment. I need to lay-off these questionable local energy drinks made here (Southeast Asia) under very little official oversight or regulations. These things, in the very rare case of being tested, often have wildly varying levels of caffeine and related compounds from batch to batch. That makes them more exciting! But also sometimes I joke (though still half-seriously wondering) that there must be some new unknown Chinese research chemicals giving that extra kick to some of these drinks, because they can sometimes be quite... uh... well.. you've just seen. 😅
Hear, hear! I saw the movies before I had read any of Tolkien's books, and the impression I got from them was that Saruman had become either Sauron's servant or ally, and was trying to get The One Ring so that he could then hand it over to Sauron. I was really surprised when I read from one of the books (I don't remember anymore which one) that he was actually trying to get the ring for himself and was planning to use it against Sauron.
One thing unmentioned which really shows how much Frodo dislikes the sack-vile baggins. They dirty a ton of dishes the night before they leave and they very un hobbit like leave all the dirty dishes for lobelia to have to wash and that’s such a insult to hobbits lmao it’s great
There's one scene in PJ's trilogy that I remember being disappointed by because I was SO hoping it would be done like in the books but wasn't: That's Frodo and company's first encounter with a Black Rider. In the book, Sam and Pippin run off to the side of the road while Frodo hesitates a moment and then suddenly moves to hide on the OTHER side of the road - Frodo is BY HIMSELF! I think this isolation is critical as it makes the fear feel much more stark and visceral. I do get it, though. PJ was clearly influenced by the Bakshi version for this scene (which he emulated completely), but also John Howe was one of the art directors on the film, and he (also influenced by Bakshi), had painted a well-known version of this scene himself that also showed the hobbits all together. It's a minor gripe I realize, but there you have it.
This series is absolutely amazing. Thank you for putting so much effort into detail and organization. These efforts make it a lot more palatable than a lot of other LOTR lore videos on youtube.
I generally dislike the movies and love the books. One of the main problems I have with the movies is that they change the nature of the characters. Pippen and Merry are not "goofballs". They do provide some comic relief, but they are also resourceful and brave in their own right. They have very important parts in the story. To tell the story of the books properly would take a mini-series, not a trilogy so I know that some adaptation is needed, but the movies pale in comparison to the books.
A criticism I would make of the movies is that there is no reference time passing at all. The presenter of this video states the movies show them leaving the next morning ... that's an assumption. Next morning, next week, next decade; there's no indication how much time that cut represents. Tolkien had worked out a very detailed and intricate sequence of events over many years that accounted for varioius processes to run their course, for travel times, etc. The movies making so little reference to time or distances, on casual viewing it could seem the whole trilogy takes place over the course of several days. I assume this was done to make the films less think-y, more appealing to a general audience ... to avoid distracting / confusing newcomers with the nitty-gritty minutiae. And apparently, it worked. Those that want to know more can dive into the realm of Tolkien studies!
@@Ryansghost I'm so confused about what you are saying right now. Are you mixing HBO's Harry Potter incoming serie with what HBO had potentially pitched for a LOTR serie before Amazon gained the right to make their ROP serie? As far as I know HBO isn't making any LOTR exclusive content.
@@remtmy No, I heard somewhere that HBO are still planning a TV adaptation of the LOTR books. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, I hope it's a thing but I've been burned before 🙁
9:53: Gildor is not aware of Frodo's mission, he has been messaged by Aragorn that some hobbits might be in danger, because the Nine are near Shire, and Gandalf is missing. He senses that the hobbits that the elves meet have experienced something horrifying. Elves are what we would call "mind readers", c.f. Silmarillion where Finrod Felagund meets with the first men and take it easy with them since he so easily can hear their thoughts. Also c.f. Galadriel's mind reading.
After 20 years to think on it i would only change 3 things in the fellowship. 1: show or just tell that Elendil & Gilgalad killed Sauron... every normy that watches the movie thinks Sauron is defeated by cutting his finger off! 2: should of shown that it was Elrond with HIS ring of power that released the flood to wash the Nazgul away before Rivendel...(flesh out the 3 rings of power more instead as far as the movie goes only Galadriel has one) 3: Should of given Aragorn Anduril when the fellowship sets out.
I kind of disagree on the first one, I think showing “Normys” the ring being cut off and heavily implying that this is what did Sauron in shows the “Normys” just how important the ring is to Sauron and how much he needs it.
Omg I love these video's. Thank you for making them. (Also, without wanting to stirr awake and direct all of the internet's hate towards me: I'm totally fine with using LotR RoP artwork in your videos. But then again, I totally get why you wouldn't)
Thank you for doing this series. It's been a while since i watched the movies. My books got destroyed during the last hurricane so it's great to listen to this!
I still cant get over the distance amount that Merry tells in the movie after getting on the Ferry. Frodo asks him about nearest crossing, to which Merry answers it's Brandywine bridge, 20 miles. And that's quite a distance, on the maps Buckleberry Ferry and Brandywine Bridge are not really far away from each other, yet there's 20 miles between them as stated by Merry. Which leads to other things with movies. Because by the maps, from Buckleberry Ferry to Bree, the Hobbits had to go for 20 miles through Crickhollow to reach the East Road, which actually starts from Brandywine Bridge and goes straight to Bree. And of cource the Nazgul would be there far faster than four Hobbits. Basically, movies, by cutting off Old FOrest and Barrow Downs, created a problematic route that Hobbits would had to take in the movies. But of cource, movie watchers wouldn't know such details, so no harm done.
Yea, of course the writers will say “oh just cause we didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”… but I think that’s just them coping with leaving out that whole section of the books. 😂
@@factorfantasyweekly They say that, but then why would Merry tell to Pippin about tales about Old FOrest at the Edge of Buckland, where trees grow taller and talk in Two Towers when Uruks brought them to the Eaves of Fangorn? If they did went through Old Forest in the movies and simply didnt showed it, Pippin would already know that fact. Of cource this explaination is mostly for the viewers, but from the in-world POV, this wouldn't make sence if they did go through the Old Forest... Unless Pippin has terrible memory and he forgot that he and Merry was almost eaten by the Old Willow :D
Im not sure if I remember correctly but after the hobbits leave with Farmer Maggot I think they hearded noice from a horse and it was Merry riding the horse instead of walking but I can not be sure if I remember it correctly
You are correct. After supping with the Maggot family, Farmer Maggot takes Frodo, Sam, and Pippin by wagon to the Buckleberry Ferry. They hear horse footsteps in the fog and it turns out to be Merry coming to look for them as he'd been waiting for them at the ferry for awhile and thought they may have fallen into a ditch. LOL
You seem so afraid to say anything negative about what Jackson did to Tolkien’s work. Jackson’s trilogy is fine if he did not change the story so much. People who never read the book do now know how much of Jackson’s own ideas are in those movie and he kept changing more and more, making it worse with each movie. Of course there is a ton of information that needs to be cut from the book. They would need 12 movies to come close to telling the whole story. Just the same Jackson cut out a ton of Tolkien’s actual story just to write in his own story! Watching the first movie is like watching a trailer of the first section of the book it moves so fast. One of the worst things that Jackson did was change the personalities and motivations of the characters. You don’t see it so much in the Fellowship. The Fellowship movie is not as bad as the following two movies as far as substituting Jackson’s storyline in place of Tolkien’s. All of Frodo’s friends actually know why Frodo is leaving but until they get to the new house Frodo believes that only Sam knows. Pippin travels with Sam and Frodo. They meet Fatty and Merry once they get near to the new “hole.” That is when they tell Frodo that they know how a problem and fully intend to go with him to Rivendale or wherever the dangerous trail takes him. There is a nice evening at the new house after spending time with Farmer Maggot. So far no great addition of Jackson’s writing. The forest would have been an interesting part of the movie but Jackson has other ideas. The first movie is not as horribly changed as the other two. I fully understand having to shorten the story. What I object to is adding storylines that are so far off base such as putting elves at Helms Deep for instance. The battle scenes were also extremely long when Tolkien did not make such a huge deal about them. I think that Jackson liked the idea of making a monster movie since that what his expertise was in. Instead of the scene of Merry and Pippin stealing vegetables (which was not in the book) Jackson could have had the elves visit them at night which is in the book. Jackson wanted to make the Hobbits look stupid and trouble making. That was not the personality of Hobbits which were curious but not trouble making generally. Pippin was the youngest and probably the dumbest but not to the extent that Jackson made him out to be. He didn’t make “crispy bacon” and get Frodo stabbed either.
You forgot to mention how in the book Frodo actually has a grandeur to his character that he's lacking in the movies, in the movies he seems like a child that needs to be taken care of because he's so weak.
@@remtmy I agree. Frodo was 50 years old when he left on his adventure. He wasn’t the 19 year old kid that they had playing him in the movie. He never turned on Sam as Jackson had him doing. The very reason that he was the ring bearer was because he had the kind personality that prevented him from falling prey to the ring’s power. Certainly none of the other Hobbits could have managed to resist as long as Frodo did. Frodo had the same kind of inner being as his Uncle Bilbo. Bilbo was considered to be the most honorable of Hobbits even by the Elves because he had given us his share of the treasure in order to prevent bloodshed and he had saved the dwarves in many situations. Jackson just unstrung all of the most important threads of the story in order to make his monster movie. The movies were great adventure movies but they were not Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien did not like what Jackson did either. He said that there were way too many battle scenes and Orks. Helm’s Deep was a chapter in the book but it took up most of one movie. Orks throughout the movie instead of the personal struggles that each character actually went through. I guess heroes are not what they once were.
@@ellietobe That's right and that's why I don't watch LOTR movies anymore. I appreciate Jackson's trilogy for putting an image and sound to this amazing universe, but nothing beats the story Tolkien wrote and perfected. It's truly an inspiring piece of art on so many level, and it inspired a lot of people. It's really SAD to see "the scouring of the shire" been a actual harsh parallel of what has become to Tolkien's work when it comes to the media.
After watching the movie the first thing I did was open the book and look for the line "For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!" This line was so impactful for me, showing how even smart, wise people can be fooled by their own arrogance and in the end believing they can control evil. Very analogous to the Jedi training that "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny". In the case of Saruman he succumbed to the lure of evil. In the case of Luke the was able to resist the appeal of the dark side.
No, the changes in this chapter get a 1/5. It undermines Merry's and Pippin's characters, changing them from loyal and well-meaning (but a bit foolish) to just goofballs. The conspiracy could've been included without adding to the running time, and would have added a lot to the story and characterisation.
It was great drama and suspense for the film, but didn't actually happen in the book. Much was changed to move the plot line along at a more suspenseful pace fitting of a 3 hour movie.
They know THAT he's leaving, and are pretty sure it has something to do with Bilbo's ring, which they know enables invisibility. They don't know about Sauron or that Frodo's ring is the One. Sam was a "spy" for the group until caught (that's why he was eavesdropping), then he clammed up because of his promise to Gandalf. Sam kept his friends secret and Gandalf's secret both, for as long as they remained secrets.
@@digitalnomad9985 "'Of course we understand,' said Merry firmly. 'That is why we have decided to come. We know the Ring is no laughing-matter; but we are going to do our best to help you against the Enemy.'" The other hobbits don't know the history of the Ring and all that, but they do know that the Enemy, the Dark Lord of Mordor, is hunting for Frodo, and they know it's because of the Ring. Merry says that Sam "collected a lot, I can tell you, before he was finally caught." What information did Sam collect that didn't come out in Gandalf's long talk with Frodo? Whatever it was, and Merry says it was a lot, it must have included the link between Frodo's ring and Sauron. "We know most of what Gandalf told you. We know a good deal about the Ring. We are horribly afraid - but we are coming with you; or following you like hounds." They know why Frodo is leaving. They don't know all the details, but they know a lot. They know Frodo is being hunted by Sauron because of the Ring, and that's why he has to leave the Shire.
@@digitalnomad9985 It looks like RUclips ate my response to you, where I quote Merry in "A Conspiracy Unmasked." I'm not going to rewrite the post. Merry says they know about the Ring and that the Enemy is hunting Frodo. He says that Sam provided lots of information before he was caught, that they learned most of what Gandalf told Frodo and a lot about the Ring. He says they know it's dangerous and that they're afraid. Go reread that part of the chapter. The hobbits definitely do know WHY Frodo is leaving. They know almost everything Frodo knows.
One thing I love with the films is the accelerated urgency. It feels so slow in the books. I'm surprised we didn't get treated to a chapter on house prices and real estate agents in the Shire.
While I agree you have to make changes when making a book into a movie, including dropping characters and plot lines, the changes made to Pippin and Merry are egregious. They are both "number one sons" who take over the family titles (The Took or Thain, and the Master of the Hall) they are not sneaking through a farmer's field and stealing vegetables. This also takes away from why they go with Frodo to Rivendell and beyond. Also, you repeated from your last video that the threat from Farmer Maggot is what caused the nazgul to run away. He actually laughs and would have run Maggot over with his horse, if he didn't jump out of the way.
Yeah, I made the mistake of commenting that “Farmer Maggot essentially scared away a Nazgûl.” I am (and was) aware that the Nazgûl wasn’t scared. I was also aware that having Farmer Maggot standing up to a Nazgûl would destroy the aura of fear that the movies were trying to portray of the Nazgûl. I worded the comment badly, and am sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Very true! I agree the Nazgûl wasn’t fearful for his life. But I do like to think that Maggot standing up to him shocked him as he probably assumed the tiny hobbit would just give in easily.
The Nazgul have one great weapon and that is fear. They dominate by fear. While I agree that the black rider was not afraid of Maggot, he was defeated in trying to dominate him.
Interesting film script error. In a scene Sam claims that "One more step and I will the furthest I have ever been from the Shire" Later, when they bump into Merry and Pippin he says "You've been into farmer Maggot's field." How would he know?
@@elsieoliver1671 Why would he? He might have heard the names from stories and possibly seen maps, but he would not recognise individual locations. There was no TV or internet back then. It was only a few generations ago that most people really began to travel, especially ordinary working class people. I mean, is it impossible, no. He could have had an off camera conversation with Frodo, but it is really a minor continuity error. It's also nit-picking on my part, but then, what are sites like this for? 🙃
@@bobthebomb1596 Why wouldn't he? Also, he says "crop", not "field", when he sees them with the veggies. Meaning he realises they've been stealing from the old man. You're looking for things that aren't there. Finally, the travel thing is flat out wrong. People used to travel a lot in pre-modern times too. Especially for religious reasons, like pilgrimages, and for trade. And I'm talking about regular peasants here.
@@fernandoerbin6751 He doesn't know about the old man, why would he know his name? Most peasants did not travel widely, hell most of my parents generation didn't travel that widely and he actually said in an earlier scene that "This is the furthest I have ever been"
About the tree root being stuck in frodo's or Sam's back. Honestly, I think it's not because they wanted to change the writing. I think it's because Elijah woods always found it easy to sleep pretty much anywhere. I could be wrong, and it was a reference to that.
The movies omitted much of the story. A large part of the first 6 chapters was spent in the Old Forest, with Tom Bombadil, who they omitted from the movies. Maybe that's why Merry and Pippin just join by knocking into Frodo and Sam. I loved the way Merry and Pippin knew what they were getting into in the book, and went with Frodo even if they knew how dangerous it'd be, and it's really sad that didn't make it into the film either 😭
Im not as keen with merry and pippin as goofballs. They're integral to reaching strider and rivendell, though i guess there is something to be said for their growth. In a film format the changes make sense and keep the plot moving forward, giving time to more important events, as i can't imagine anything i'd cut to make way here. Only a band of brothers style 10 episode mini series per film would open these avenues. But i'd only want that if we had a time machine and used all the original cast, crew, directors, and level of technology (to avoid the hobbit CGI hell). So if the Dr from Dr Who is real and could sort that out please...
I remember that Frodo was an orphan Bilbo took in so it's not surprising he stole from people. It would've been nice to learn more about his past. I love the dynamic that Frodo was a 50 year old man while his traveling companions were half his age and Pippin (his 2nd cousin once removed) was the one he was closest with before he and Sam set off alone.
is conspiracy unmasked after the ferry or before ? i forget . i think the other hobbits were aware of the ring and frodos plan on leaving and had been curious even of bilbo when he used the ring and sam had divulged pretty much everything and even fatty when being surrounded by nazgul fled and cried "i dont have it or i have not got it" or something like this implying some knowledge of the ring or atleast knowledge of something frodo had that the black riders wanted
Conspiracy unmasked will be covered in the next episode as it’s the chapter after this one. They do reveal to Frodo that merry had guessed about the ring. But they do not know it’s the One Ring of Sauron. They just think it’s treasure bilbo got from his adventures, and that some people want it. I’ll admit, this is my fault as I am reading it as I analyze the scenes. So because I hadn’t read that chapter yet, I missed it, and should’ve mentioned that fact in this episode. My mistake! But yes, they don’t know it’s THE one ring.
Conspiracy Unmasked happened AFTER the Buckleberry Ferry.... they get to Crickhollow and have dinner (they're ALWAYS eating!!) and that's when Frodo starts to tell them that he's actually leaving, then they tell him they've known about the ring and the plan to leave for a long time.
I loved the video But I feel like the title did not match the video. Almost feels like you uploaded the wrong one. It was hardly about Pippin, unless I missed something.
I can't remember if this is even true or something I just dreamt up, but I believe there were talks very very early on, by a studio representative I think, of combining Merry and Pippin into one character, or even cutting them both, to avoid confusing the viewer. Again I can't confirm if I even read it anywhere but this type of thing is done frequently in movies so including a whole extra cast of characters and subplot that has no big tangible consequence would be wild. Tolkien was an amazing writer and he was definitely not much concerned with story efficiency, but movies have to be
To be fair, that whole section with Tom Bombadil creates a major pacing problem in screenplay that is not as pronounced in the novel. It's a major diversion when the party's barely out of the Shire.
Love this, watch the trilogy Every year but never read the books so Im learning so so much from this series, commenting and liking every video to help out and hopefully going all the way through all movies/ books
At least one year seems to pass between Bilbo's departure from the Shire (Third Age 22 September, 3000 according to FOTR-EE) and Gandalf's return. There are just too many events that take place and too much time that would have to be spent by Gandalf just traveling for the Council of Elrond to take place on 25 October of that same year. That places the events of the War of the Ring from the year 3001 to 3002.
@@keithtorgersen9664 Yes, but you seem to miss my point. I'm saying that it's October 24, the following year. September 22, 3000 (film) is Bilbo's birthday party; Frodo and Sam depart in September (23?), 3001. Frodo passes out at the ford on October 20, 3001.
@@circedelune Yes, in the BOOK. Peter Jackson condensed that to seemingly a single year. Note that Thranduil in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies refers to Aragorn as a young Ranger called Strider. However, in Tolkien's legendarium Aragorn was still a 10 year-old child only known as 'Estel".(Sindarin for "hope").
what should of been done rather then moving things all over the place and cutting so much is make it 6 motives just as JR really wrote but intitled them 2 by 2 as he did. Wouldnt be great if they had done this. If JR had been alive he would of made them do this for leaving out any one part detract form all the others. All that would of need do to make it so that ppl who have not read all of JR work is a little narration when needed to inform ppl to lazy to read.
for me these changes and all other took form the story JR told. It needs to be redone this time as 6 4hr movies and leave nothing out and stick to what JR wrote and the order in which he wrote it. If some narration is need for ppl to lazy to read do so but also when i goes to being on line do 2 one with narration for non reader and then one without for those of us who have read it.
Why did Tolkien feel so much time in the Shire was needed? Why 17 years? Was he trying to explain the time needed to build up so many orcs and goblins?
Peter Jackson "framed" Pippin for Frodo's stupidity, because it is hard to implement Tolkien's back-and-forth scenery regarding Frodo's interaction with Strider, then Frodo's trying to distract from Pippin, then invisibly crawling back to Aragorn. How do you avoid confusing the viewer? How do you realistically film a scene where an invisible person crawls? Peter Jackson was almost faithful to the tone of the trilogy, but the compromises he implemented were understandable. A book is a book, a film is a film. The only thing I dislike is that he made Aragorn a sissy: the book-Aragorn might have had doubts, but he was already decided to fulfill his purpose, and if successful marry his betrothed Arwen, when Elrond gave the shards of Narsil to him, which was long before the film.
To be honest Frodo's Crickhollow plan was pretty silly, surely a story that he was going to the West Fathing would have made more sense, and they had to change the timeline, not least because their Frodo was too young to have credibly waited 17 years. It was a shame to lose Farmer Maggot, but the one bit I don't like is the accidental involvement of Merry and Pippin, to join the quest without a thought didn't ring true.
when u put words on the screen leave them there a little longer. U have to pause to read and that takes more time then u allow. I had to go back three time to pause it to read.
Great video, love it, but Farmer Maggot does get shown, the Nazgûl asks him “Shire? Baggins?” And as his dog whimpers and backs into the house he says to look in hobbiton.
Make sure to check out the previous video for my analysis of that scene! If you haven’t read the books, I can see how one would think that’s maggot. But if it is, they really changed him from the books. As one commenter said on the previous video, they like to think that farmer is a neighbor to Maggot, and a sackville baggins. 😂
You said they never show Farmer Maggot's face in the movies, but I always thought that the guy who gets asked directions by the nazgul was supposed to be a reference to him. They dont state it outright, but he is a human farmer just outside hobbiton, with a pet dog, who has a (nonlethal) encounter with a ringwraith. For those reasons I always assumed that was who he was supposed to represent
Check out my previous video for my thoughts on this one! A little side note, he is a hobbit farmer, not human, but he lives on the outskirts of the Shire instead of in Hobbiton, which is why he points the Nazgûl in the direction. It could definitely be maggot, but if that’s what Peter Jackson meant, there’s two issues. 1.) We hear the voice of maggot chasing them in the field, and the voice is COMPLETELY different (since Maggot is old). 2.) The book Farmer Maggot interaction with the Nazgûl is totally different than the one portrayed in the movies. So if Jackson did want that guy to be Maggot, he butchered him. 😭 Regardless, all great things to explore! Check out the previous vid and I’d love to hear your thoughts. 😁
this is an anachronistic mess of scenes that were originally from much later. gandalf didnt reunite with saruman and have that squabble until the beginning of the two towers, just before pippin and merry got abducted and taken to isengard themselves and isengard was destroyed by treebeard. there was absolutely no elven departure from middle earth for the undying lands never to return until the end of return of the king when frodo was going there to rest and recover from his finger being bitten off. neither frodo nor pippin ever committed any crimes either. only sam did, and those crimes were against gollum. although i suppose gandalf may have been right to call pippin a fool of a took for making noise in moria and drawing attention to themselves from the evil therein.
They're already long movies for theatre so alot had to be cut out, even for the extended. But it still made perfect sense as entertaining movies for most people. I admit I've only read some of the books, but you get the plot watching the movies. I just wish they would have left in the death of Saruman & Grima instead of leaving us wondering & Boromir's speech at Osgiliath.
Peter Jackson explained his changes in the behind the scenes. He wanted there to be more urgency to demonstrate the danger they are all in and the power of the ring. It makes sense.
Title says “How Peter Jackson framed Pippin for Frodo’s Crimes” yet at 7:49 which is more than half way in… Not even close to getting to the point posted… 🙄 Done watching…. I got tricked with what stinks of click bait…
As the purist fans would say ... Don't know why they didn't stick to the source material ! Guess that only applies when they pissed off about racial diversity !🤣🤣🤣
The may have been good movies, but they are poor adaptations. Unnecessary deletions and alterations to characters considering the time any money he had is criminal. As a fan of Tolkien’s works from the 70s, I watched these once and never will again because I was so pissed off! Furthermore, I ignored The Hobbit movies because of the LOTR ones.
That's a shame, because The Hobbit movies are generally accepted to be a whole lot more accurate to the books than Jackson's TLOTR adaptation. Give them a try, I'm sure you'll love them.
@@CAPTDILLIGAF Yeah, they expanded on Tolkiens little book in a sensitive and meaningful way. The romance between an elf and a dwarf, in particular, went against the old-fashioned view that it was taboo, updating the commonly held mores of Victorian England, and shouting out loud that "we are modern people, with 20th century views, writing for a modern audience, like Tolkien should have done".
@@Ryansghost Writing for the modern audience is why they are poor adaptations. Fantasy is an escape or, better yet, a respite from the modern world and so an intrusion of the modern world ruins the experience.
Wish you didn't do the flickering on your videos. Tried watching some. Just gives me a headache. Unsubscribed because I like not having migraines more than Tolkien lore
Want to get into the Lord of the Rings for the first time OR simply rediscover Middle Earth in a whole new way? 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE with my code:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Are you bought by Amazon? The only channel i ever saw, that constantly puts a negative twist on the trilogy..
@gingerbaker_toad696 Did you not hear him say, at the beginning of the video, that he thinks that these movies are one of the best of all time?
And I’m not even going to say that I very strongly disagree with him on that because they are Hollywood’s worst films ever made.
Also, are you guys getting paid by Warner Brother’s, New Line Cinema, and Fox/Disney to keep protecting Jackson’s moronic lotr trilogy like creepy Jackson apologists that you all are? It’s getting so annoying and boring, and a ton of people are realizing that you guys are extremely hypocritical.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 you seem to be as.. bitter, as a person not appreciating LotR must be
How Peter Jackson framed Pimping for Frodo's crimes.
You forgot to mention in the books that the basket of goodies Farmer Maggot’s wife gave them included mushrooms, and that Farmer Maggot teased Frodo by mentioning he hadn’t forgotten Frodo’s stealing his mushrooms as a youngster. I loved that detail in the books, as it showed Farmer Maggot’s humour.
Yes, that’s a great detail! Maggot has a sense of humor. 😂
It was hilarious how Farmer Maggot kept to himself that he remembered Frodo as a mushroom thieving rascal... until much later when he good-naturedly said something like, "...I reckon you still have a taste for mushrooms...."
Love Farmer Maggot. Only Farmer Maggot and old Hamfast could look a Nazgul in the hood and tell them politely to shove off.
One change I don't care for in the movie is that Merry and Pippin essentially bungle their way into Frodo's adventure rather than being friends who were helping Frodo out of loyalty all along and had actually figured out Frodo's real plan before Frodo told them.
I guess the redemption for that was how well done was their sacrifice in Amon Hen
Well, I think that was due to the changes in the movie. There Frodo never made any plans but started out to Bree and Rivendell very spontaneously. So there was no opportunity for Merry and Pippin to guess and anticipate what he was doing and to help him out of loyalty. A meeting by chance was quite a good option to bring the four hobbits together.
I think it's just for time and flow of the scenes. They certainly prove their loyalty to frodo at the council of Elrond when they join the Fellowship
@@kylemarkloff4451 as a flow on answer,, of case ,, A,B,C,D.. the 3 main things are ,,.. as we of ye olde 1973 mass population// teacher was nspired by british colonial dogma of Tolkien using Tom Bombadil as impersonator of Frodo,, so.as this is a Spoiler for Amazons Rongz off Power ,,.. with the colonial use of Tom as G.O.A.T. we were informed ,,rmed that tom as Narnia link,, we were t aught & receite ... d the Hobbit... as a daily comprehention,,,2,, Bilbo as writer of the tale , until q Frdood o takes hipodf the ring
They didn’t have to join. They had many times we’re it was clear this would be dangerous, and they didn’t have to come. But they chose to go with Frodo. They even sacrifice themselves to help him get away. Sounds like loyalty to me.
8:37
Correction. You claim that Merry and Pippin don't know why Frodo is leaving the Shire. The reader think that they doesn't know anything, only Sam. But later, in Crickhollow, in the chapter "A Conspiracy Unmasked", it turns out that Sam, Merry and Pippin have long conspired against Frodo, and this in all good intentions. Merry has known about the ring since 18 years back, and they sense that sooner or later Frodo will go after Bilbo. Over time, they also find out that the ring is extraordinary, and something to be handled with great care. They connect Frodo's departure plans and his possession of the ring, and plan to accompany him as support, all to facilitate and aid him in the adventures to come. But Frodo learns about this only in Crickhollow, the same night he intends to reveal that he does not plan to settle there at all - which the other hobbits have already understood.
Also, in the book Orthanc scene, Saruman doesn't reveal to Gandalf that he owns a Palantir and never says he wants to join with Sauron.
Indeed, in the book we are led to believe that Saruman simply wants to capture the ring for himself. Gandalf only realises that the stone is a Palantir when Pippin looks into it at the end of their Two Towers (!) story, and only then it becomes clear that he was corrupted into evil by Sauron.
Yeah, the book Saruman only has a temporary truce with Sauron, and fully intends to start a war against him once he´s done with everyone else.
@@pavelslama5543Well, it's more like Saruman is publically aligned with Sauron while secretly trying to find the One Ring to use for himself. Sauron suspects the obvious treachary which leads to Saruman throwing away all his armies at Helms Deep because he believes the ring is there, and he knows he can't actually stand against Sauron without it.
Yeah Saruman wanted to BE the next dark lord, not serve him
The Shire to Bree are my favourite parts of the whole story. I love re reading those parts. The Ringwraith crawling towards the Hobbits is terrifying.
Also, slight correction. Farmer Maggot does have a face in the movies, its the scene where his dog retreats into the house and he says 'they're up in Hobbiton, that way!'
Thats NOT farmer Maggot. Its a kind of likeness maybe, but not the same face we get a glimpse of when hes chasing them from his property...
Farmer Maggot in the Movies: Just go away and leave me alone!
Farmer Maggot in Tolkien: Piss off or I'll sick my dogs on ye!
Grip! Fang! Wolf!
as someone who is reading the books for the first time, and has watched the movies countless times, it's nice to hear a side by side, especially one this detailed! fun reliving these moments!
Glad to hear you’re enjoying it!
Hope you enjoy the books, they have so much more depth than the films.
Thank you so much for this! It brings back questions and inferences that I drew as a 9-year-old well more than 60 years ago. Riding on a country school bus i immersed myself in Frodo, Gandalf, and many others. Your attention to detail reminds me how I also loved, and mentally catalogued, the intricacies and richness of these books. Thanks again
I love doing it! Glad you’re enjoying it.
69. Nice.
1 thing I always remember about the book/movie is that you spend 150 pages in the Shire, getting to know them. You feel you're with them. The movie, "We gotta get it moving, let's go."
I can forgive many of the changes Jackson made to the trilogy, but the one that was most unforgivable one - which I assume you'll cover in a future episode - was Arwen taking the glory of carrying Frodo across the river and taking credit for what Elrond and Gandalf did to the Black Riders with it.
This scene is so pivotal to Frodo's character and tells us (the reader) why he is the one carrying the ring, before they even met Elrond and form the fellowship.
With it altered, all we've heard (from people who didn't read the book) is that Frodo did nothing and was a weak character and Sam should have taken the ring etc.
Hoping you do this injustice it's proper insight. Looking froward to watching it.
Great videos.
that, and Elves at Helm's deep.
For me, it's Faramir, but I agree with everyone else's too.
Tolkien put Eowyn and Galadriel as the central strong females. In the modern era this is not sufficiently balanced so Jacksons team also developed more scenes with Arwen.
@@hallstewart More scenes is fine. Altering multiple central plot points in the process though? There's no excuse. As stated in my original comment, the scene was pivotal in showing Frodo's strength of character.
@@Siosal01 While I would agree that Frodo's characterization is generally lacking in the movie, hallstewart did provide you with a reason why changes were made to that scene. Not an excuse, a reason. You can criticize that decision and the underlying reasoning, though, but not really deny its existence :P
Something very important to bring up- there's a complicated narrative in regard to Saruman's allegiance to Sauron as expressed in the books. The movies portray him as a wholesale servant of Sauron with absolute obedience, but it's not quite that way in the books. Saruman's motive for serving Sauron is to really try and actually manipulate him in order to use Sauron for his own ends. The reality of that is Sauron is most blatantly aware of Saruman's attempts to use him and it only makes Saruman more of a pawn in Sauron's eyes. Saruman also is somewhat blind by his own pride to the risk of building an army in challenge of Sauron, but at the same time seems to be precariously aware of the huge gamble he is running if he cannot find the ring.
They didn't outright say it. But the whole saurmon made a whole orc army to specifically bring the ring to HIM basically cements him as not a true servant of sauron and only ever in it for his own power
@zachthecool4321, yeah there’s also a minor part from the books that isn’t included in the film, where the Mouth of Sauron is making demands to Gandalf, and specifically denounces Saruman for his treachery
Saruman was arrogant and thought that he is above the corrupting influence, that it is OK to serve good by evil means. The other white council members: Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel did understand they could not fight evil with evil which led to the long planned decision to destroy the ring at the council in Rivendell. The big risk was Denethor and Boromir also taking the path of evil. It’s no coincide that both Saruman and Denethor had palantir and therefore strongly implied that Sauron caused their corruption this way.
The movie provides enough context, a little bit directly, and plenty more through subtext to be inferred and dots connected by the viewer.
I think most adult viewers easily pick up on these things, as well as many children who are avid readers or movie fanatics and therefore familiar with common story-telling tropes and archetypes. I know at least that when I was about the age of 12 and seeing these movies for the first time in theaters, I had no trouble inferring most of Sarumon's unspoken goals and true motivations.
And while the films don't really give any indication that Sauron has been fully aware from the start of Sarumon's true motivations, desires, and intentions (as far as I recall) I still always had the impression that he was at the very least, partially-aware, or aware that this version of Sarumon had the potential to end up on that path with those intentions, as one possible branch of reality/fate. These weren't blind assumptions either; while not specifically indicated in the films, we are provided more general insight and impressions of Sauron and his abilities and overall awareness.
We are presented with a very powerful and ancient entity, with supernatural abilities and some degree of immortality, which seems to be far beyond the kind of immortality experienced by the elves. We are told that he is basically the supreme bad guy of this universe, out-surviving even his prior master, the OG #1 Dark Lord, until he was fully defeated and banished from that world and entire plane of reality. We are shown that even Gandalf harbors a significant degree of fear and uncertainty of Sauron, and we are basically met with all of this information and context within the first few minutes of the first film. I think it's fair to say that the viewer is even given the impression that he is an almost omniscient entity in this world.
The last main thing which leads the viewer to suspect that he is certainly at least somewhat aware of Sarumon's plans, activities, and inner desires - and likely has the ability to keep a close eye on Sarumon, that comes in The Two Towers when we begin to learn a bit about the Palantirs and the kind of insight and awareness that they can facilitate. Sarumon shows Gandalf how he can use his Palantir to kind of check-in on and monitor Sauron as well as communicate with him.
And while we aren't shown that Sauron is able to redial Sarumon's Palantir and do the same, if not more, right back on the same phone line to Sarumon, I think the viewer can safely assume that while viewing The Two Towers. But by The Return of the King though, we are finally explicitly shown Sauron using the Palantirs in such a manner over Pippin (damn fool of a Took!) but this time it is conveyed to the viewer just how deep Sauron can dig into the mind of a Palantir-owner and siphon out detailed information, deep secrets, and even forcibly extract specific information that might not be freely floating about one's mind or recent memory, by employing a kind of telepathic interrogation.
At that point in the film trilogy we then know for sure that Sauron knew entirely everything the whole time concerning Isengard and it's master. He was just acting unaware, giving Sarumon a false sense of power and psychological/intellectual superiority, allowing Sarumon's plans to unfold because most of his actions leading up to just prior to an actual coup attempt would allign and support Sauron's own plans and needs, and those plans which did not perfectly allign could be altered to do so by using the Palantirs to manipulate Sarumon's subconscious, bending his will and his plans to better suit Sauron's immediate and long-term needs.
So while the movies don't make a point of extensively spelling put all of those inner driving forces behind Sauron and Sarumon like the books do, I feel there is enough context and indications in the film to make it pretty discernable or inferable what the inner-motivations and actual likely intentions of these villains are, and just how extensive the level of Sauron's awareness was, over both Sarumon and Middle-Earth at large.
*But holy Balrog's breath!!!* I did not intend to write a whole university dissertation in response to your comment. I need to lay-off these questionable local energy drinks made here (Southeast Asia) under very little official oversight or regulations. These things, in the very rare case of being tested, often have wildly varying levels of caffeine and related compounds from batch to batch. That makes them more exciting! But also sometimes I joke (though still half-seriously wondering) that there must be some new unknown Chinese research chemicals giving that extra kick to some of these drinks, because they can sometimes be quite... uh... well.. you've just seen. 😅
Hear, hear! I saw the movies before I had read any of Tolkien's books, and the impression I got from them was that Saruman had become either Sauron's servant or ally, and was trying to get The One Ring so that he could then hand it over to Sauron. I was really surprised when I read from one of the books (I don't remember anymore which one) that he was actually trying to get the ring for himself and was planning to use it against Sauron.
One thing unmentioned which really shows how much Frodo dislikes the sack-vile baggins. They dirty a ton of dishes the night before they leave and they very un hobbit like leave all the dirty dishes for lobelia to have to wash and that’s such a insult to hobbits lmao it’s great
Not only that, but they also drink all of the good wine before leaving.
There's one scene in PJ's trilogy that I remember being disappointed by because I was SO hoping it would be done like in the books but wasn't: That's Frodo and company's first encounter with a Black Rider. In the book, Sam and Pippin run off to the side of the road while Frodo hesitates a moment and then suddenly moves to hide on the OTHER side of the road - Frodo is BY HIMSELF! I think this isolation is critical as it makes the fear feel much more stark and visceral. I do get it, though. PJ was clearly influenced by the Bakshi version for this scene (which he emulated completely), but also John Howe was one of the art directors on the film, and he (also influenced by Bakshi), had painted a well-known version of this scene himself that also showed the hobbits all together. It's a minor gripe I realize, but there you have it.
This series is absolutely amazing. Thank you for putting so much effort into detail and organization. These efforts make it a lot more palatable than a lot of other LOTR lore videos on youtube.
Thanks for watching!
I generally dislike the movies and love the books. One of the main problems I have with the movies is that they change the nature of the characters. Pippen and Merry are not "goofballs". They do provide some comic relief, but they are also resourceful and brave in their own right. They have very important parts in the story. To tell the story of the books properly would take a mini-series, not a trilogy so I know that some adaptation is needed, but the movies pale in comparison to the books.
They are shown as brave when they think the troll spears frodo they jump oj his back and start shanking him
Obv
And during Bilbo's birthday party Pippin was only 11 years old in the books that is the part of the timeline is pretty much changed
Yep! Check out one of the previous videos in the series for my analysis on that.
Farmer maggot was one of the most important characters in the books
“Unavoidable” is such a strong word
A criticism I would make of the movies is that there is no reference time passing at all. The presenter of this video states the movies show them leaving the next morning ... that's an assumption. Next morning, next week, next decade; there's no indication how much time that cut represents. Tolkien had worked out a very detailed and intricate sequence of events over many years that accounted for varioius processes to run their course, for travel times, etc. The movies making so little reference to time or distances, on casual viewing it could seem the whole trilogy takes place over the course of several days. I assume this was done to make the films less think-y, more appealing to a general audience ... to avoid distracting / confusing newcomers with the nitty-gritty minutiae. And apparently, it worked. Those that want to know more can dive into the realm of Tolkien studies!
Only mistake: should have been 6 movies!
That's why I'm so looking forward to HBO's LOTR. It's a great opportunity to drill down into the detail of Tolkiens books.
@@Ryansghost I'm so confused about what you are saying right now.
Are you mixing HBO's Harry Potter incoming serie with what HBO had potentially pitched for a LOTR serie before Amazon gained the right to make their ROP serie?
As far as I know HBO isn't making any LOTR exclusive content.
@@remtmy No, I heard somewhere that HBO are still planning a TV adaptation of the LOTR books. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, I hope it's a thing but I've been burned before 🙁
@@Ryansghost fat amazon ruins it
9:53: Gildor is not aware of Frodo's mission, he has been messaged by Aragorn that some hobbits might be in danger, because the Nine are near Shire, and Gandalf is missing. He senses that the hobbits that the elves meet have experienced something horrifying. Elves are what we would call "mind readers", c.f. Silmarillion where Finrod Felagund meets with the first men and take it easy with them since he so easily can hear their thoughts. Also c.f. Galadriel's mind reading.
After 20 years to think on it i would only change 3 things in the fellowship.
1: show or just tell that Elendil & Gilgalad killed Sauron... every normy that watches the movie thinks Sauron is defeated by cutting his finger off!
2: should of shown that it was Elrond with HIS ring of power that released the flood to wash the Nazgul away before Rivendel...(flesh out the 3 rings of power more instead as far as the movie goes only Galadriel has one)
3: Should of given Aragorn Anduril when the fellowship sets out.
I agree, but I would also change some of the things discussed in this video.
There are more things that I would change. My number one change is the whole Aragorn love triangle thing. It makes me cringe so hard.
There are more things that I would change. My number one change is the whole Aragorn love triangle thing. It makes me cringe so hard.
I kind of disagree on the first one, I think showing “Normys” the ring being cut off and heavily implying that this is what did Sauron in shows the “Normys” just how important the ring is to Sauron and how much he needs it.
Normys lol, smh at eIitist
Omg I love these video's. Thank you for making them.
(Also, without wanting to stirr awake and direct all of the internet's hate towards me: I'm totally fine with using LotR RoP artwork in your videos. But then again, I totally get why you wouldn't)
I appreciate it! Thank you 🙏🏼
Thank you for doing this series. It's been a while since i watched the movies. My books got destroyed during the last hurricane so it's great to listen to this!
I still cant get over the distance amount that Merry tells in the movie after getting on the Ferry. Frodo asks him about nearest crossing, to which Merry answers it's Brandywine bridge, 20 miles. And that's quite a distance, on the maps Buckleberry Ferry and Brandywine Bridge are not really far away from each other, yet there's 20 miles between them as stated by Merry.
Which leads to other things with movies. Because by the maps, from Buckleberry Ferry to Bree, the Hobbits had to go for 20 miles through Crickhollow to reach the East Road, which actually starts from Brandywine Bridge and goes straight to Bree. And of cource the Nazgul would be there far faster than four Hobbits. Basically, movies, by cutting off Old FOrest and Barrow Downs, created a problematic route that Hobbits would had to take in the movies. But of cource, movie watchers wouldn't know such details, so no harm done.
Yea, of course the writers will say “oh just cause we didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”… but I think that’s just them coping with leaving out that whole section of the books. 😂
@@factorfantasyweekly They say that, but then why would Merry tell to Pippin about tales about Old FOrest at the Edge of Buckland, where trees grow taller and talk in Two Towers when Uruks brought them to the Eaves of Fangorn? If they did went through Old Forest in the movies and simply didnt showed it, Pippin would already know that fact. Of cource this explaination is mostly for the viewers, but from the in-world POV, this wouldn't make sence if they did go through the Old Forest... Unless Pippin has terrible memory and he forgot that he and Merry was almost eaten by the Old Willow :D
Im not sure if I remember correctly but after the hobbits leave with Farmer Maggot I think they hearded noice from a horse and it was Merry riding the horse instead of walking but I can not be sure if I remember it correctly
You are correct. After supping with the Maggot family, Farmer Maggot takes Frodo, Sam, and Pippin by wagon to the Buckleberry Ferry. They hear horse footsteps in the fog and it turns out to be Merry coming to look for them as he'd been waiting for them at the ferry for awhile and thought they may have fallen into a ditch. LOL
You seem so afraid to say anything negative about what Jackson did to Tolkien’s work. Jackson’s trilogy is fine if he did not change the story so much. People who never read the book do now know how much of Jackson’s own ideas are in those movie and he kept changing more and more, making it worse with each movie.
Of course there is a ton of information that needs to be cut from the book. They would need 12 movies to come close to telling the whole story. Just the same Jackson cut out a ton of Tolkien’s actual story just to write in his own story! Watching the first movie is like watching a trailer of the first section of the book it moves so fast. One of the worst things that Jackson did was change the personalities and motivations of the characters. You don’t see it so much in the Fellowship.
The Fellowship movie is not as bad as the following two movies as far as substituting Jackson’s storyline in place of Tolkien’s.
All of Frodo’s friends actually know why Frodo is leaving but until they get to the new house Frodo believes that only Sam knows. Pippin travels with Sam and Frodo. They meet Fatty and Merry once they get near to the new “hole.” That is when they tell Frodo that they know how a problem and fully intend to go with him to Rivendale or wherever the dangerous trail takes him. There is a nice evening at the new house after spending time with Farmer Maggot. So far no great addition of Jackson’s writing. The forest would have been an interesting part of the movie but Jackson has other ideas. The first movie is not as horribly changed as the other two.
I fully understand having to shorten the story. What I object to is adding storylines that are so far off base such as putting elves at Helms Deep for instance. The battle scenes were also extremely long when Tolkien did not make such a huge deal about them. I think that Jackson liked the idea of making a monster movie since that what his expertise was in.
Instead of the scene of Merry and Pippin stealing vegetables (which was not in the book) Jackson could have had the elves visit them at night which is in the book.
Jackson wanted to make the Hobbits look stupid and trouble making. That was not the personality of Hobbits which were curious but not trouble making generally. Pippin was the youngest and probably the dumbest but not to the extent that Jackson made him out to be. He didn’t make “crispy bacon” and get Frodo stabbed either.
Yes, I totally agree with your point about having Pippin burn the bacon... it undermined everything that Tolkien stood for.
You forgot to mention how in the book Frodo actually has a grandeur to his character that he's lacking in the movies, in the movies he seems like a child that needs to be taken care of because he's so weak.
@@remtmy I agree. Frodo was 50 years old when he left on his adventure. He wasn’t the 19 year old kid that they had playing him in the movie. He never turned on Sam as Jackson had him doing. The very reason that he was the ring bearer was because he had the kind personality that prevented him from falling prey to the ring’s power. Certainly none of the other Hobbits could have managed to resist as long as Frodo did. Frodo had the same kind of inner being as his Uncle Bilbo. Bilbo was considered to be the most honorable of Hobbits even by the Elves because he had given us his share of the treasure in order to prevent bloodshed and he had saved the dwarves in many situations.
Jackson just unstrung all of the most important threads of the story in order to make his monster movie. The movies were great adventure movies but they were not Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien did not like what Jackson did either. He said that there were way too many battle scenes and Orks. Helm’s Deep was a chapter in the book but it took up most of one movie. Orks throughout the movie instead of the personal struggles that each character actually went through. I guess heroes are not what they once were.
@@ellietobe That's right and that's why I don't watch LOTR movies anymore. I appreciate Jackson's trilogy for putting an image and sound to this amazing universe, but nothing beats the story Tolkien wrote and perfected. It's truly an inspiring piece of art on so many level, and it inspired a lot of people.
It's really SAD to see "the scouring of the shire" been a actual harsh parallel of what has become to Tolkien's work when it comes to the media.
My favourite line from this part is when Lobelia comes to claim Bag End, and Frodo is so pissed off, that he "does not offer her any tea".
After watching the movie the first thing I did was open the book and look for the line "For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!" This line was so impactful for me, showing how even smart, wise people can be fooled by their own arrogance and in the end believing they can control evil. Very analogous to the Jedi training that "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny". In the case of Saruman he succumbed to the lure of evil. In the case of Luke the was able to resist the appeal of the dark side.
No, the changes in this chapter get a 1/5. It undermines Merry's and Pippin's characters, changing them from loyal and well-meaning (but a bit foolish) to just goofballs.
The conspiracy could've been included without adding to the running time, and would have added a lot to the story and characterisation.
I love how the Peter Jackson writers added the black rider actually chasing the hobbits to the ferry. What a great scene.
It was great drama and suspense for the film, but didn't actually happen in the book. Much was changed to move the plot line along at a more suspenseful pace fitting of a 3 hour movie.
@@caryrogers9676 Hence the word "added".
Merry and Pippin (and Fatty) DO know why Frodo is leaving the Shire. They just don't tell him they know.
They know THAT he's leaving, and are pretty sure it has something to do with Bilbo's ring, which they know enables invisibility. They don't know about Sauron or that Frodo's ring is the One. Sam was a "spy" for the group until caught (that's why he was eavesdropping), then he clammed up because of his promise to Gandalf. Sam kept his friends secret and Gandalf's secret both, for as long as they remained secrets.
@@digitalnomad9985 "'Of course we understand,' said Merry firmly. 'That is why we have decided to come. We know the Ring is no laughing-matter; but we are going to do our best to help you against the Enemy.'"
The other hobbits don't know the history of the Ring and all that, but they do know that the Enemy, the Dark Lord of Mordor, is hunting for Frodo, and they know it's because of the Ring.
Merry says that Sam "collected a lot, I can tell you, before he was finally caught." What information did Sam collect that didn't come out in Gandalf's long talk with Frodo? Whatever it was, and Merry says it was a lot, it must have included the link between Frodo's ring and Sauron.
"We know most of what Gandalf told you. We know a good deal about the Ring. We are horribly afraid - but we are coming with you; or following you like hounds."
They know why Frodo is leaving. They don't know all the details, but they know a lot. They know Frodo is being hunted by Sauron because of the Ring, and that's why he has to leave the Shire.
@@digitalnomad9985 It looks like RUclips ate my response to you, where I quote Merry in "A Conspiracy Unmasked." I'm not going to rewrite the post. Merry says they know about the Ring and that the Enemy is hunting Frodo. He says that Sam provided lots of information before he was caught, that they learned most of what Gandalf told Frodo and a lot about the Ring. He says they know it's dangerous and that they're afraid.
Go reread that part of the chapter. The hobbits definitely do know WHY Frodo is leaving. They know almost everything Frodo knows.
The promise Sam makes to Gandalf hits so hard when Frodo saves him from drowning at the end of The Fellowship film
2:45 Pippin ran into Frodo like an NFL linebacker 🤣
One thing I love with the films is the accelerated urgency. It feels so slow in the books. I'm surprised we didn't get treated to a chapter on house prices and real estate agents in the Shire.
While I agree you have to make changes when making a book into a movie, including dropping characters and plot lines, the changes made to Pippin and Merry are egregious. They are both "number one sons" who take over the family titles (The Took or Thain, and the Master of the Hall) they are not sneaking through a farmer's field and stealing vegetables. This also takes away from why they go with Frodo to Rivendell and beyond. Also, you repeated from your last video that the threat from Farmer Maggot is what caused the nazgul to run away. He actually laughs and would have run Maggot over with his horse, if he didn't jump out of the way.
Yeah, I made the mistake of commenting that “Farmer Maggot essentially scared away a Nazgûl.” I am (and was) aware that the Nazgûl wasn’t scared. I was also aware that having Farmer Maggot standing up to a Nazgûl would destroy the aura of fear that the movies were trying to portray of the Nazgûl. I worded the comment badly, and am sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Very true! I agree the Nazgûl wasn’t fearful for his life. But I do like to think that Maggot standing up to him shocked him as he probably assumed the tiny hobbit would just give in easily.
The Nazgul have one great weapon and that is fear. They dominate by fear. While I agree that the black rider was not afraid of Maggot, he was defeated in trying to dominate him.
11:46 wait wait wait, does that mean nazghuls, are afraid of some dogs? wtf XD
Interesting film script error.
In a scene Sam claims that "One more step and I will the furthest I have ever been from the Shire" Later, when they bump into Merry and Pippin he says "You've been into farmer Maggot's field."
How would he know?
Not being a smart ass but wouldn't he know about places he hasn't been. Especially areas/farms local to the shire.
@@elsieoliver1671 Why would he? He might have heard the names from stories and possibly seen maps, but he would not recognise individual locations. There was no TV or internet back then.
It was only a few generations ago that most people really began to travel, especially ordinary working class people.
I mean, is it impossible, no. He could have had an off camera conversation with Frodo, but it is really a minor continuity error. It's also nit-picking on my part, but then, what are sites like this for? 🙃
@@bobthebomb1596 Why wouldn't he? Also, he says "crop", not "field", when he sees them with the veggies. Meaning he realises they've been stealing from the old man. You're looking for things that aren't there.
Finally, the travel thing is flat out wrong. People used to travel a lot in pre-modern times too. Especially for religious reasons, like pilgrimages, and for trade. And I'm talking about regular peasants here.
@@fernandoerbin6751 He doesn't know about the old man, why would he know his name?
Most peasants did not travel widely, hell most of my parents generation didn't travel that widely and he actually said in an earlier scene that "This is the furthest I have ever been"
About the tree root being stuck in frodo's or Sam's back. Honestly, I think it's not because they wanted to change the writing. I think it's because Elijah woods always found it easy to sleep pretty much anywhere. I could be wrong, and it was a reference to that.
Watching the movies is like watching a documentary on Yellowstone. Reading the book is like hiking through Yellowstone
The movies omitted much of the story. A large part of the first 6 chapters was spent in the Old Forest, with Tom Bombadil, who they omitted from the movies. Maybe that's why Merry and Pippin just join by knocking into Frodo and Sam. I loved the way Merry and Pippin knew what they were getting into in the book, and went with Frodo even if they knew how dangerous it'd be, and it's really sad that didn't make it into the film either 😭
I loved these books. It was required reading in one of my English classes in High School. Along with War and Peace, and For Whom the Bell Tolls 😢.
Im not as keen with merry and pippin as goofballs. They're integral to reaching strider and rivendell, though i guess there is something to be said for their growth. In a film format the changes make sense and keep the plot moving forward, giving time to more important events, as i can't imagine anything i'd cut to make way here. Only a band of brothers style 10 episode mini series per film would open these avenues. But i'd only want that if we had a time machine and used all the original cast, crew, directors, and level of technology (to avoid the hobbit CGI hell). So if the Dr from Dr Who is real and could sort that out please...
instead of rings of power i would love a show that goes scene for scene and word for word of the books!
How Peter Jackson framed Pimping for Frodo's crimes.
I remember that Frodo was an orphan Bilbo took in so it's not surprising he stole from people. It would've been nice to learn more about his past.
I love the dynamic that Frodo was a 50 year old man while his traveling companions were half his age and Pippin (his 2nd cousin once removed) was the one he was closest with before he and Sam set off alone.
is conspiracy unmasked after the ferry or before ? i forget . i think the other hobbits were aware of the ring and frodos plan on leaving and had been curious even of bilbo when he used the ring and sam had divulged pretty much everything and even fatty when being surrounded by nazgul fled and cried "i dont have it or i have not got it" or something like this implying some knowledge of the ring or atleast knowledge of something frodo had that the black riders wanted
Conspiracy unmasked will be covered in the next episode as it’s the chapter after this one. They do reveal to Frodo that merry had guessed about the ring. But they do not know it’s the One Ring of Sauron. They just think it’s treasure bilbo got from his adventures, and that some people want it.
I’ll admit, this is my fault as I am reading it as I analyze the scenes. So because I hadn’t read that chapter yet, I missed it, and should’ve mentioned that fact in this episode. My mistake! But yes, they don’t know it’s THE one ring.
oh they knew about it before Frodo left the shire, remember Merry helped Frodo find his house in Crickhollow and had actually seen Frodo with the ring
Conspiracy Unmasked happened AFTER the Buckleberry Ferry.... they get to Crickhollow and have dinner (they're ALWAYS eating!!) and that's when Frodo starts to tell them that he's actually leaving, then they tell him they've known about the ring and the plan to leave for a long time.
The Gaffer is my favorite character lol. He reminds me of my grandfather lol
the title of this video is actually really funny
Those must have been some ferocious dogs to scare of a Nazgul.
I loved the video
But I feel like the title did not match the video. Almost feels like you uploaded the wrong one.
It was hardly about Pippin, unless I missed something.
i always imagine that the shire somehow drains or negates the majority of the nazguls power. it's the only thing that makes sense.
I can't remember if this is even true or something I just dreamt up, but I believe there were talks very very early on, by a studio representative I think, of combining Merry and Pippin into one character, or even cutting them both, to avoid confusing the viewer. Again I can't confirm if I even read it anywhere but this type of thing is done frequently in movies so including a whole extra cast of characters and subplot that has no big tangible consequence would be wild.
Tolkien was an amazing writer and he was definitely not much concerned with story efficiency, but movies have to be
To be fair, that whole section with Tom Bombadil creates a major pacing problem in screenplay that is not as pronounced in the novel. It's a major diversion when the party's barely out of the Shire.
Love this, watch the trilogy Every year but never read the books so Im learning so so much from this series, commenting and liking every video to help out and hopefully going all the way through all movies/ books
Read the books, you'll never look at the movies again.
At least one year seems to pass between Bilbo's departure from the Shire (Third Age 22 September, 3000 according to FOTR-EE) and Gandalf's return. There are just too many events that take place and too much time that would have to be spent by Gandalf just traveling for the Council of Elrond to take place on 25 October of that same year. That places the events of the War of the Ring from the year 3001 to 3002.
But even in the movie, Gandalf tells Frodo that he wakes up on October the 24th.
@@keithtorgersen9664 Yes, but you seem to miss my point. I'm saying that it's October 24, the following year. September 22, 3000 (film) is Bilbo's birthday party; Frodo and Sam depart in September (23?), 3001. Frodo passes out at the ford on October 20, 3001.
@@otaku-sempai2197there are 17 years between Bilbo’s birthday party and Frodo leaving the Shire.😊
@@circedelune Yes, in the BOOK. Peter Jackson condensed that to seemingly a single year. Note that Thranduil in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies refers to Aragorn as a young Ranger called Strider. However, in Tolkien's legendarium Aragorn was still a 10 year-old child only known as 'Estel".(Sindarin for "hope").
Yep, agree with the 5 out of 5.
❤thank for showing us
what should of been done rather then moving things all over the place and cutting so much is make it 6 motives just as JR really wrote but intitled them 2 by 2 as he did. Wouldnt be great if they had done this. If JR had been alive he would of made them do this for leaving out any one part detract form all the others. All that would of need do to make it so that ppl who have not read all of JR work is a little narration when needed to inform ppl to lazy to read.
for me these changes and all other took form the story JR told. It needs to be redone this time as 6 4hr movies and leave nothing out and stick to what JR wrote and the order in which he wrote it. If some narration is need for ppl to lazy to read do so but also when i goes to being on line do 2 one with narration for non reader and then one without for those of us who have read it.
The flickering effects made me think my screen is broken 😅
Thanks!
Why did Tolkien feel so much time in the Shire was needed? Why 17 years? Was he trying to explain the time needed to build up so many orcs and goblins?
Getting rid of the 17 year gap was one of the best changes from the books. It could have been a few weeks or months now, which is better.
the films are a good representation, like a shop window
Not one of. Peter Jackson and company created THE greatest film trilogy of all time
Sorry, it was decent, but nowhere close to the Star Wars trilogy, or even the Prequel trilogy.
I'm glad you called this out as very few RUclipsrs do this but instead are kissing PJ's ass regarding.
From the book
Peter Jackson "framed" Pippin for Frodo's stupidity, because it is hard to implement Tolkien's back-and-forth scenery regarding Frodo's interaction with Strider, then Frodo's trying to distract from Pippin, then invisibly crawling back to Aragorn. How do you avoid confusing the viewer? How do you realistically film a scene where an invisible person crawls? Peter Jackson was almost faithful to the tone of the trilogy, but the compromises he implemented were understandable. A book is a book, a film is a film. The only thing I dislike is that he made Aragorn a sissy: the book-Aragorn might have had doubts, but he was already decided to fulfill his purpose, and if successful marry his betrothed Arwen, when Elrond gave the shards of Narsil to him, which was long before the film.
The absolute chicanery of Frodo.
Gak, Peter Jackson's movie were not to my tastes, but I loved the books.
To be honest Frodo's Crickhollow plan was pretty silly, surely a story that he was going to the West Fathing would have made more sense, and they had to change the timeline, not least because their Frodo was too young to have credibly waited 17 years. It was a shame to lose Farmer Maggot, but the one bit I don't like is the accidental involvement of Merry and Pippin, to join the quest without a thought didn't ring true.
..."Frodo's crimes"...??? What, is he guilty of Hobbit Privilege or something?
when u put words on the screen leave them there a little longer. U have to pause to read and that takes more time then u allow. I had to go back three time to pause it to read.
Tom was omitted simply because a. time and b. it provided nothing to the story when time is a factor.
Great video, love it, but Farmer Maggot does get shown, the Nazgûl asks him “Shire? Baggins?” And as his dog whimpers and backs into the house he says to look in hobbiton.
Make sure to check out the previous video for my analysis of that scene! If you haven’t read the books, I can see how one would think that’s maggot. But if it is, they really changed him from the books. As one commenter said on the previous video, they like to think that farmer is a neighbor to Maggot, and a sackville baggins. 😂
@@factorfantasyweekly well it’s credited as Maggot, so I don’t really care about your chatGPT’s interpretation of it.
*triggered* 💀
@@factorfantasyweekly well no, but now your channel is going to be pulled down.
You said they never show Farmer Maggot's face in the movies, but I always thought that the guy who gets asked directions by the nazgul was supposed to be a reference to him. They dont state it outright, but he is a human farmer just outside hobbiton, with a pet dog, who has a (nonlethal) encounter with a ringwraith. For those reasons I always assumed that was who he was supposed to represent
Check out my previous video for my thoughts on this one! A little side note, he is a hobbit farmer, not human, but he lives on the outskirts of the Shire instead of in Hobbiton, which is why he points the Nazgûl in the direction. It could definitely be maggot, but if that’s what Peter Jackson meant, there’s two issues. 1.) We hear the voice of maggot chasing them in the field, and the voice is COMPLETELY different (since Maggot is old). 2.) The book Farmer Maggot interaction with the Nazgûl is totally different than the one portrayed in the movies. So if Jackson did want that guy to be Maggot, he butchered him. 😭
Regardless, all great things to explore! Check out the previous vid and I’d love to hear your thoughts. 😁
this is an anachronistic mess of scenes that were originally from much later. gandalf didnt reunite with saruman and have that squabble until the beginning of the two towers, just before pippin and merry got abducted and taken to isengard themselves and isengard was destroyed by treebeard.
there was absolutely no elven departure from middle earth for the undying lands never to return until the end of return of the king when frodo was going there to rest and recover from his finger being bitten off.
neither frodo nor pippin ever committed any crimes either. only sam did, and those crimes were against gollum. although i suppose gandalf may have been right to call pippin a fool of a took for making noise in moria and drawing attention to themselves from the evil therein.
They're already long movies for theatre so alot had to be cut out, even for the extended. But it still made perfect sense as entertaining movies for most people. I admit I've only read some of the books, but you get the plot watching the movies. I just wish they would have left in the death of Saruman & Grima instead of leaving us wondering & Boromir's speech at Osgiliath.
MUSHROOMS!
I take issue with you calling it "one of the greatest film trilogies of all time." It was clearly the greatest. What else even comes close?
Yea, how many other designed trilogies are there, as opposed to movies with sequels.
Peter Jackson explained his changes in the behind the scenes. He wanted there to be more urgency to demonstrate the danger they are all in and the power of the ring. It makes sense.
Title says “How Peter Jackson framed Pippin for Frodo’s Crimes” yet at 7:49 which is more than half way in… Not even close to getting to the point posted… 🙄
Done watching…. I got tricked with what stinks of click bait…
"creative liberties" is such an interesting euphemism for "violation" ...
As the purist fans would say ... Don't know why they didn't stick to the source material ! Guess that only applies when they pissed off about racial diversity !🤣🤣🤣
The may have been good movies, but they are poor adaptations. Unnecessary deletions and alterations to characters considering the time any money he had is criminal. As a fan of Tolkien’s works from the 70s, I watched these once and never will again because I was so pissed off! Furthermore, I ignored The Hobbit movies because of the LOTR ones.
That's a shame, because The Hobbit movies are generally accepted to be a whole lot more accurate to the books than Jackson's TLOTR adaptation. Give them a try, I'm sure you'll love them.
@@Ryansghost Three movies from that short book, I highly doubt it. I’d rather watch the Rankin/ Bass version.
@@CAPTDILLIGAF Yeah, they expanded on Tolkiens little book in a sensitive and meaningful way. The romance between an elf and a dwarf, in particular, went against the old-fashioned view that it was taboo, updating the commonly held mores of Victorian England, and shouting out loud that "we are modern people, with 20th century views, writing for a modern audience, like Tolkien should have done".
@@Ryansghost Writing for the modern audience is why they are poor adaptations. Fantasy is an escape or, better yet, a respite from the modern world and so an intrusion of the modern world ruins the experience.
@@CAPTDILLIGAF I couldn't agree more.
Wish you didn't do the flickering on your videos. Tried watching some. Just gives me a headache. Unsubscribed because I like not having migraines more than Tolkien lore
Pipan was not framed because pipan saw into all seeing stone! Its his fault