Mellon Geek: Your excellent review--even though some points seem to you a "stretch"--brings up visions of the epic in my mind. It's evident that PJ really wanted to convey the spirit of Tolkien's subcreation and the truths Tolkien portrays through his wonderful characters. My pointy hat off to you, O Wise Lore Master. May your beard grow ever longer (but always trimmed). Namarie.
6:54: I wonder if any Gondorian nobility tried to change Minas Tirith zoning laws to build a straight path through the tiers of the city. Hm. Probably shot down by the lampwrights' guild, whose lamp shops would get less foot traffic if pedestrians didn't have to walk to the ends of each tier.
The whole city itself was built by architectural feats that the Gondorians long lost and to suggest changes would be decried as sacrilegious and a harm to security. What's next, painting the outer wall grey so that it matches the other tiers?
I also appreciate the inclusion of the statue of the fallen king. From what I can tell, Tolkien never specified who this king was, but it seems in the film, he was modeled similarly to one of the Argonath statues, so I presume it is supposed to be Isildur.
One thing that I ponder is while the look of Minas Tirith is impressive and beatiful it still feels kinda small. Having visited and lived in cities dating to medieval times they are often equal or bigger in size. But that is a nitpick and overall I think they get Minas Tirith right (besides the lack of a black outer wall)
A slight correction: the beacons that Gandalf and Pippin see in the book are not meant to signal Rohan, but other parts of Gondor. Rohan was called via a messenger carrying a red arrow AFAIK Tolkien got the inspiration for the beacons from the medieval Roman ('Byzantine') empire that had a similar network of beacons the border guards used to signal the rest of the country about approaching enemies
What are your thoughts on the animated version? The creators are getting a lot of hate from Tolkien fans that don’t even want to give it a chance. Are you worried about it?
To Tolkien lore: If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
Why do you copy paste this comment to other unrelated comments in the comment section lmao. They probably changed it because they wanted Azog to be the antagonist for Thorin, and Bolg for Legolas, because they needed to add more filler into the movies, which was bad
@TolkienLorePodcast Oh, I think you misunderstood my question. You mentioned in the video that the theatrical was better in some ways. Was it simply because the extended one added worse or bad stuff?
You just made me realize that Jackson shot himself in the foot by killing off Saruman and Wormtongue in RoTK, for now he can't make a faithful Scouring film.
As I recall, that style of winged helmet is actually how Aragorn's crown looked (because it's based on old Numenorean helmets) according to the book. For some reason, PJ turned it into the soldiers' helmets and gave Aragorn a more traditional crown.
The fountain guards, or citadel guards did. Kind of like how British military don't wear silly fluffy hats, but the 'majesty of tradition' is maintained for specific units.
If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
A movie can be unfaithful to the source material and still be good, just like you can have a film with an original plot not tied to a book that's good The overall story in the Jackson films is more or less the same as in the books and therefore is great, the acting is great, the visuals are great, the music is great. The PJ films are, in terms of cinematography, great films, even though they fail in terms of faithfully adapting the story
Its funny, Tolkien is often criticized for his supposedly wooden unnatural dialogue, and yet his lines sound amazing when spoken aloud and pretty much saved the movies, along with the score, top-tier acting (other than Elijah Wood), stunning landscapes and Weta Workshop's set designs and costuming. Otherwise, the actual plot is nonsensical and contradictory if you pay attention. I also think that the Scouring couldve worked. The movie had tons of "endings" anyway. It wouldn't take that much,maybe twenty minutes. The crowds wouldve come to see the movie anyway, they had nothing to lose.
Having a watcher-in-the-water attack a mumak from in a pond in a sunny Rohan field demonstrates a fundamentally bad artistic vision... but that vision doesn't in any way derive from wokeness or subversiveness. What, do you think the watcher-in-the-water was placed there as a DEI hire? What they should do to be woke is make the Dunlendings the good guys. _You are on occupied Dunlendish land._ _You are on occupied Dunlendish land._ _You are on occupied Dunlendish land._
@@coreyander286 The fact that they made the main character the daughter who barely plays a role in the story. She's some girlboss who could "rule the world."
If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
Mellon Geek: Your excellent review--even though some points seem to you a "stretch"--brings up visions of the epic in my mind. It's evident that PJ really wanted to convey the spirit of Tolkien's subcreation and the truths Tolkien portrays through his wonderful characters. My pointy hat off to you, O Wise Lore Master. May your beard grow ever longer (but always trimmed). Namarie.
If I ever stop having to look professional even the trimming will go 😂
6:54: I wonder if any Gondorian nobility tried to change Minas Tirith zoning laws to build a straight path through the tiers of the city. Hm. Probably shot down by the lampwrights' guild, whose lamp shops would get less foot traffic if pedestrians didn't have to walk to the ends of each tier.
The whole city itself was built by architectural feats that the Gondorians long lost and to suggest changes would be decried as sacrilegious and a harm to security. What's next, painting the outer wall grey so that it matches the other tiers?
I also appreciate the inclusion of the statue of the fallen king. From what I can tell, Tolkien never specified who this king was, but it seems in the film, he was modeled similarly to one of the Argonath statues, so I presume it is supposed to be Isildur.
One thing that I ponder is while the look of Minas Tirith is impressive and beatiful it still feels kinda small. Having visited and lived in cities dating to medieval times they are often equal or bigger in size. But that is a nitpick and overall I think they get Minas Tirith right (besides the lack of a black outer wall)
A slight correction: the beacons that Gandalf and Pippin see in the book are not meant to signal Rohan, but other parts of Gondor. Rohan was called via a messenger carrying a red arrow
AFAIK Tolkien got the inspiration for the beacons from the medieval Roman ('Byzantine') empire that had a similar network of beacons the border guards used to signal the rest of the country about approaching enemies
Fair, but the movie audience doesn’t know that lol.
What are your thoughts on the animated version? The creators are getting a lot of hate from Tolkien fans that don’t even want to give it a chance. Are you worried about it?
You mean War of the Rohirrim? I suspect it will be a disappointment but I plan to see it opening night and review it.
To Tolkien lore:
If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
Why do you copy paste this comment to other unrelated comments in the comment section lmao.
They probably changed it because they wanted Azog to be the antagonist for Thorin, and Bolg for Legolas, because they needed to add more filler into the movies, which was bad
What do you think is better in the theatrical vs the extended versions?
Extended, though there are a few places where they’re worse or add bad stuff.
@TolkienLorePodcast Oh, I think you misunderstood my question. You mentioned in the video that the theatrical was better in some ways. Was it simply because the extended one added worse or bad stuff?
@Leahi84 yeah, I was just making the point that not everything the extended version adds/modifies is an improvement.
You just made me realize that Jackson shot himself in the foot by killing off Saruman and Wormtongue in RoTK, for now he can't make a faithful Scouring film.
Do the guards in Minas Tirith in the movie really have winged helmets? I am pretty sure they don't
As I recall, that style of winged helmet is actually how Aragorn's crown looked (because it's based on old Numenorean helmets) according to the book. For some reason, PJ turned it into the soldiers' helmets and gave Aragorn a more traditional crown.
Just the guys guarding the tree.
The fountain guards, or citadel guards did.
Kind of like how British military don't wear silly fluffy hats, but the 'majesty of tradition' is maintained for specific units.
Seeing how many adaptation (both produced and unproduced) made HORRIBLE decisions, I don't think any good decision was obvious.
I MUST definitively agree,the extended scene in the Path of the Dead with Gimli was so silly&goofy that it was a character killer.
Funny to think that it’s a bit of a struggle to find things Jackson did well in relation to the books, yet Return of the King won eleven Oscars!
If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
Since when was an Oscar evidence of being faithful to the original story?
@ I dunno, maybe some of the winners of best adapted screenplay
A movie can be unfaithful to the source material and still be good, just like you can have a film with an original plot not tied to a book that's good
The overall story in the Jackson films is more or less the same as in the books and therefore is great, the acting is great, the visuals are great, the music is great. The PJ films are, in terms of cinematography, great films, even though they fail in terms of faithfully adapting the story
Its funny, Tolkien is often criticized for his supposedly wooden unnatural dialogue, and yet his lines sound amazing when spoken aloud and pretty much saved the movies, along with the score, top-tier acting (other than Elijah Wood), stunning landscapes and Weta Workshop's set designs and costuming. Otherwise, the actual plot is nonsensical and contradictory if you pay attention. I also think that the Scouring couldve worked. The movie had tons of "endings" anyway. It wouldn't take that much,maybe twenty minutes. The crowds wouldve come to see the movie anyway, they had nothing to lose.
It's sad the War of the Rohirrim is going to be woke subversive crap, for the Superfans. Lol.
Having a watcher-in-the-water attack a mumak from in a pond in a sunny Rohan field demonstrates a fundamentally bad artistic vision... but that vision doesn't in any way derive from wokeness or subversiveness. What, do you think the watcher-in-the-water was placed there as a DEI hire?
What they should do to be woke is make the Dunlendings the good guys.
_You are on occupied Dunlendish land._
_You are on occupied Dunlendish land._
_You are on occupied Dunlendish land._
@@coreyander286 Dunland Lives Matters my N_
You should read "politics and the English language" by George Orwell
@@coreyander286 The fact that they made the main character the daughter who barely plays a role in the story. She's some girlboss who could "rule the world."
If I made my version of the Hobbit story, Azog would have died years ago by Dain Ironfoot II in the battle of Moria before the The Hobbit story took place. Azog was only mentioned by Gandalf, but Azog does not appear in my version of the Hobbit story, because he was already dead. Bolg should be the only one leading the orc-army in the battle of the five armies. Why did the Hobbit movie change this?
Still whining about movies that came out over 20 years ago while siting in room surrounded by movie memorabilia. That bored?
Or maybe it just makes good content? 🤷🏻♂️
It makes for interesting discussion, I love the movies as well as the books and I am always interested in hearing different opinions.