9 things I HATE about the Lord of the Rings movies
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2024
- Today we talk about the 9 things that really frustrate me in the Lord of the Rings Movies. Share your LotR movies Pet Peeves Below!
Support me on Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=83474753
Got video Ideas?: forms.gle/VNTuGL8iNRfmuNoM7
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/parttimehobbit12870
Follow me on Instagram: / jess_of_the_shire
Contact me: jess.of.the.shire.business@gmail.com
Music by Epidemic Sound. Check out my referral link here: share.epidemicsound.com/yz6hu0 - Krátké a kreslené filmy
What I find most frustrating with the "Go home, Sam." scene, is that Sam KNOWS that he didn't do it and that he's been set up, but he doesn't decide to go back until after he finds the bread. Every time I watch it, I imagine Sam saying to himself, "I knew it. I *didn't* eat the bread!"
True, but you gotta admit Sean Astin really sells that scene.
@@williamhamilton1154 Oh, there's nothing wrong with any of the acting! It's just his motivation that's lacking. Maybe if he'd gotten hurt or fell behind and Gollum kept Frodo's focus on the road ahead. I feel like if Frodo would've told Book Sam to "Go home", he would've been like, "And who's gonna make me? You can barely stand and we both know that I can take Gollum! I'll show you that he's a snake, Mr. Frodo! You'll see!" Sam's just too loyal to get turned away so easily.
See, to me it the scene feels more sensical. He knows he didn't eat the bread, but he can't prove it and his initial accusation that Gollum ate the bread *is* kind of crazy, because of *course* Gollum wouldn't touch the stuff.
Sam is being gaslit, but given the insanity of Frodo's personality changes, he does begin to doubt a lot that he felt certain about. Sam no longer recognizes Frodo. He fears that the Frodo he knew might be totally swallowed up by the evil of the ring, and he's afraid that staying with Frodo and Gollum will get them both killed. He doesn't know what to do, so he leaves, defeated and brokenhearted.
Then he sees the bread and it reminds him what a scoundrel Gollum is, it's the proof he would need to justify himself, and it re-invigorates his passion to protect Frodo.
@@SamONeil-OneWheelOneil I suppose that could work. Except that he knows that he's leaving Frodo with someone who he's actually overheard plotting their deaths, and he "made a promise" that he refuses to break. So it just doesn't fit. Not in my brain.
I hate that scene because Tolkien based Sam and Frodo's relationship on an officer in WWI and his bat boy. The bat boy(Sam) would never, ever abandon his officer.(Frodo). This means that Sam should have waited till the other 2 were out of sight and then followed. Or Jackson could have left the tale in the book as it was where Sam gets furious and runs after Gollum while Frodo goes forward. They still get separated by Gollum.
"Poor Gimli, sacrificed in the name of slapstick comedy". With that statement you nailed Gimli's true role in the movies. "Army of Darkness" is a classic!
Gimli is an orc slayer in the book, even the actor complained about it.
I was really upset when the movies came out that Gimli didn't get his moment from Helm's Deep in the book, where he springs out of the shadows to aid Aragorn (who had just been tripped by some orcs), he sounds off the ancient Dwarven warcry "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" (meaning "Axes of the Dwarves! The Dwarves are upon you!") and swiftly beheads a couple of orcs, and the rest of the orcs flee in terror.
I also would have liked a shot of Gimli (maybe slowmotion, I'm unsure) where he just plants his feet firmly into the ground and gripping his axe with both hands, and proceeds to just lop off arms and legs and heads of swarming orcs, and I would have liked it if they could have worked in Aragorn's line (when in the book Gimli is separated from him during the battle and winds up taking a stand in some cave) when he reassures Legolas that Gimli will be fine with the words "Never did I see an axe so wielded."
Gimli on the Paths of the Dead = Shaggy. But there's no Scooby, so what was the point?
@@phj223 You do have to consider PG-13 - can't be lopping off arms and legs all over the place. Even the absence of much blood in the movie is totally unrealistic, but we gotta keep the rating. Also, JRD was the tallest cast member, so you'd have to be artful as to how you shot that.
@@phj223 I doubt this is the reason, but I'd like to think that the lack of a ton of really good Gimli fighting scenes is because none of the orc actors or stunt men were willing to face him. Apparently the prosthetics, together with the actor's allergic reaction to them, made it so that he couldn't really see anything so in all of his fight scenes he was a real terror who just went in swinging his axe around without any ability to tell if he was endangering someone's life.
The movies miss a few big things that the were profoundly important in the books. The biggest, imo, being that despite all the misery Gollum causes, Sam spares him on Mount Doom after having him at knife point, so it was only due to Sam's mercy that the ring was ultimately destroyed, thus proving Gandalf's wisdom that there are many forces at work in the world, not just the will of evil.
Well, without that, it defaults to Bilbo's mercy for Gollum that destroyed the Ring. That was explicitly talked about in Fellowship and it gets the message of mercy across still.
I don't either way is inherently better or worse.
Bilbo had no just reason to kill Gollum; at the point he becomes the ringbearer Gollum has done him no harm and just searching for what he lost. By the time Samwise has the chance to, he has every reason to kill Gollum for the misery, deceit, and entrapment with Shelob @@ackyfacky4332
Gollum I think is the most thematically important character in the books. Although I do like how in the movies Sméagol and Gollum are treated as a tragedy how Sméagol is still just a Hobbit who likes riddles and catching fish.
He’s a very sad creature that we are invited to forgive. Which plays into the Christian themes of the books.
That God is merciful and despite the worlds evils it is in essence created by God and therefor good.
Well they already showed Gollum mercy the first time Sam and Frodo captured him. How many instances of mercy are needed?
@@ericstaples7220 but its nowhere near as meaningful at that point because 1) they had something to gain by keeping him alive (the way into Mordor), and 2) he hadn't just tried to kill them!
Surprised that you didn't point out that losing the scene of Legolas taking down the Mumakil would have robbed us of Gimli's "That still only counts as one."
I like that they didn’t just turn into a rock, they turned into a high school theatre chickenwire rock. The kind that Captain Kirk throws at lizard men.
@johansmallberries9874 I didn't see the clip when she was talking about it but just from your fantastic description I knew exactly what it looked like.
The Gorn!!!😂
The basics of theatre--chicken wire and paper mache
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Also the limits of high-school theatre, or maybe Ken Briggs was some sort of curse. Our production was _so_ bad.
Also the Easterlings were probably a hundred yards away as they stared at the disturbance on the hillside, not peering down at them while literally standing next to them as they cower beneath a fake rock.
Also a very similar scene with the three hunters encountering the riders of Rohan. The horseman did not see them at all until Aragorn stood up and called out to them. They had sat down on the side of a grassy hill and drew their cloaks about them and pulled their hoods up, blending into the grass so much that they literally startled the riders when they made themselves known.
That's another thing. In the books, the characters are often wearing their hoods up, this is why you see them often illustrated that way prior to Peter Jackson and they did away with the walking sticks, too.
My biggest pet peeve was Aragorn's fakeout death in The Two Towers. At least most of Frodo's fake outs were in the books. Aragorn being tackled by a Warg rider's is nowhere in the books and doesn't help the movie.
This too is one of my biggest complaints about the movies.
Agreed.
Yep! That bit proved that Peter Jackson and his script-writing committee were not great writers. Tolkien was.
That scene was just a clumsy excuse to get more Arwen screen time.
We must have read different books as Aragorn did have a fake out death in The Two Towers. The mechanics of his fall may have been embellished for the movie but his companions need to believe he is dead to get the joyous relief / we still have a chance payoff prior to the battle of helms deep.
@@geraldmalott7814 There wasn't even a Warg Rider fight in the books. What books are YOU reading? Because was no fakeout death in them. They arrived at Helm's Deep generally without problems.
The irony of your multiple endings complaint is that they cut the actual ending from the book.
In the book, the actual ending makes all of the pre-endings worth it. What's the point of watching the last half hour of the movie without it?
I like that they cut out the stuff with Saruman. Not only did it feel forced, but it was also just good to see an ending where the hobbits return home and are happy.
@@bowserbreaker2515 The Scouring of the Shire is the entire point of a hero's journey. Their adventure has changed them from carefree folk into legendary figures. They've gained the skills necessary to defend their home, not through magic or divine intervention, but by their willingness to do what's right. It also mirrors the Elves seeing their realms fading. There's a nostalgic theme throughout the story regarding artifacts and structures that were once grand, now cracked mossy and out-of-place. A restorative approach brings about victory, such as the reforging of Aragorn's blade, or mending the old alliance of Rohan and Gondor. So too even a simple way of life needs maintenance and care, else it's lost to time.
@@Mr12Relic Fair enough. But in context of the movies, it would've been too much.
@@bowserbreaker2515I think it was right for them to cut it. But it didn’t feel force and is still an important part of the story
The line "I'm no man". The book line fit her better n felt right. "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him." Yes its longer n u still have the girl boss theme. The movie line feels so clunky.
I forgave that, but only because movie Eowyn isn't real Eowyn. She's too lame to have the good line.
I agree. It was way too heavy handed girl boss for the atmosphere of the movie. I really wish we had gotten that whole story and full lines.
My problem with that scene is, even after killing the freaking Witch King of Angmar, she still has to be 'rescued' by Aragorn from the creepy crawling Harvey Weinstein orc chieftain. In the book she did not need to be rescued on the battle field by a man. She was strong enough on her own.
My biggest pet peeve in these movies is how little dialogue Legolas gets compared to the book. I wish they added more of it.
This might’ve been a blessing in disguise because Orlando is kinda one dimensional
@@wingthomaux I agree. I think it was by design. Orlando's acting chops reached a high at level and this was at the beginning of his career so he was probably at a Schwarzenegger level at that point.
@@wingthomaux that's not Orlando's fault. He was one dimensional cause Peter Jackson tried to control every piece of his elvish acting in every close-up.
@@salvador.garcia well said. The director should always get the blame for bad acting - unless he had no choice in who took the role (and jackson did).
I wish they'd have included more of both Legolas' and Gimli's dialogue from the books...really a lot of the changes were just confusing.
The ghost army at the battle of pelenor field is overpowered
Using Elrond and the Army of the Dead instead of the rangers was a huge problem.
Yeah, it’s a funny thing how that battle simultaneously absolutely amazing in every way and yet contains some of the cheesiest and most unfortunate gimmicks in the movies. Maybe an attempt to lighten the tone a little? But the ghost army and Legolas’ mumakil surfing makes a kind of tonal whiplash with say, the charge of the Rohirrim or Eomer weeping over the bodies of his family
And the AT-AT size mûmakil are not?
It felt like a cheat.
Yeah, unlike the books where Aragorn like, ten other guys killed all the orcs. We don't want things to be unfair after all.
Legolas vs other Elves is a great example of the "Law of Conservation of Ninjutsu", where one ninja is a deadly threat, while dozens are a mere annoyance
Some peeves insulting my sense of science and physics:
- Isildur floating downriver dead, wearing chain mail
- one 80kg ranger plus one 20kg hobbit leaning forward to influence the fall of a 300 ton stone pillar
- skinny old fart wearing a billowing robe free-falling faster than a sleek solid-steel sword
- archers at Helm's Deep spanning and holding their bows for ages (btw.: Captains ordering archers to "fire" their bows. Not all that sure it was from this movie, but it just came up, mentioning archers)
- Uruk-Hai-armour apparently made of cardbard
Other serious peeve:
- Aragorn pouring away (or at least trying to) the soup given to him by Eowyn is so out of character. They are on the run and don't have much to offer. So a fellow on moral high ground would not throw out food just because it's not particularly good. He's a ranger after all, not some spoiled prince.
The version in my imagination::
Aragorn: "It's good"
Eowyn (surprised): "really?"
Aragorn: "not really" [eats it anyway]
Both have a good laugh and bond a little bit more
One small pet peeve I have about the movie is when Aragorn decapitates the Mouth of Sauron. Aragorn in the books knew full well that heralds and emissaries are given safe conduct. This is also something that holds true in the real world, and the observance of such goes far back in history. It's as if Peter Jackson is telling us that he'll rely on the ignorance of we the audience to make that scene work.
Nothing sets the tone for your reign like a war crime
Even worse than Aragorn committing this crime is all the viewers who cheer when he does it.
"This is blasphemy! This is madness!"
"This - is - GONDOR!"
🤣
If Frank Miller were directing LOTR!
I agree with you. It left a sour tone. But I think Peter Jackson loves violence and gore. "Meet the Feebles" was a movie of note that I watched when young. He has a fascination for Black humour, something that I don't think Tolkien has. I think that Bakshi was the same.
You will probably see it come through in his movies, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit.
That violent Bravado.
It worked for me..😅
My biggest peeve when watching the films is Eowyn's "reveal". When I first read the books (I saw the films after reading the books) I had no idea who the mysterious rider who took care of Merry was and so was genuinely shocked, surprised and delighted when, in the battle with the Witch King, off comes the helmet, down flows the hair and there we have her in all her glory, along with a truly magnificent speech. In the film, she is wearing a far too open helmet which clearly shows who it is, and then, to top it all, when Merry is dragged up onto the horse he utters the line "My Lady", thereby completely spoiling the magical moment I described. Not only that, but Miranda Otto, a wonderful actress, is robbed of her great speech which I feel she would have delivered much like Brunnhilde singing the end of the Immolation Scene in "Gotterdammerung". Having said that, I did generally enjoy the films and thought they did a good job of showing us Tolkien's world. And to end on a positive note, Sir Ian McKellen just IS Gandalf. He captures every facet of the character so perfectly.
One of my pet peeves too. Eowyn's reveal in the book was one of my favorite bits.😮
I don't think you could hide her identity without a big cumbersome helmet, which would immediately alert viewers to the fact this is a character in disguise.
M'lady 🎩
My thought on this (and I agree with you) is that in a visual setting it would’ve been more difficult to hide her. Unless they just put a full, face-covering helmet and never let her speak.
I think the issue is how it's a lot easier to hide the voice of someone in text vs in film.
I just miss Glorfindel. He is such a badass in the history of Middle Earth that I wish he got the initial screen time instead of Arwen. Arguably one of the most heroic elves to ever live.
And then there is Feanor …
Glorfindel is a one-off character. He's good for world building in the books but in cinema, it's much easier to confuse your viewers with too many characters. One-offs are usually the first to go.
I can see your point, but he was a bit too OP. I’m glad they gave more purpose to Arwen tbh
Zzzzzzzzzzzz....no way.
See Arwen got the scenes right for the film adaptation, it is no longer a 1950 era book. It has to play for modern audiences, it did not screw with the spirit of the story, in a new interesting way? Glorifindel, was he not honoured in the extended cut? I'm just a fan since age 12 a long time ago 😂 🥑
@amymjennings are you high madam?
The thing about Legolas’s moves that make them SO MUCH better than the infamous barrel-scene is that he still looks like he has weight and inertia. The dwarves in the hobbit constantly bounce around as though they’re blow-up dolls with no weight at all.
Blow up dolls? Based on personal experience?
Also, Legolas is able to move in ways humans and dwarves cannot in the books. For example, he walks on top of the snow when everyone else has to wade through it.
What bothers me about the barrel scene is just the departure from the book. In the book it's a stealth prison escape, which has worked on film countless times before. Instead, they made it Splash Mountain: Hobbit Edition.
@@hazelbaumgartner9706 the movies are filled alot with corruption and seriousness, sadness and losses. yes its the way its intended to be but for younger audience (film movie age rating 12) its nice if there is some lets call it goofyness or commedy in there. for an adult the scene feels weird, yes but we are not the only audiece thats looked at. and tbh... mr jackson didnt want to make the movies and he had a time limit if i remeber correct. and he still made 3 very good movies out of it (even if they sometimes go very far away from the book). its still 107x better then amazons r*pe with the guyladriel garbage or the black neary bald elf or celebrimbor who looks as an elf older then saruman in the lord of the rings or FCKING BLACK DWARFS!! in what universe does this make sence?! there is a reson why people have darker skin. its called sun. darfs live under mountains in their majestic halls and mines. there is no god damn sunlight. dwarfs should be pale of even like albino white. even todd howard and his team understood this and made the falmer in the elder scrolls not only exremly white but even blind because of the darkness. they just wanna include everything in an setting that doesnt work with that. if you want at all costs include for example black people then since you allready buchered everything just allready show the warriors of harad. they live in hot deserts with alot of sun. here it makes more then enough sence to cast black people. you can cast there thousands of people and give them roles. but nooo it had to be dwarfes and elves. in my eyes amazon still should be sued till they payed every last penny they have and never make any series ever again. its okay in my eyes to alter old stories a bit but make it so that is makes sence. tolkien looked alot at euopean/british and nordic mythology. it makes sence that there is no black people there. dam the show makes me lose my mind
Ok, but the chance of maintaining balance spinning on the bald head of a dwarf in a barrel in storming river while shooting at orcs who shoot at you is less than standing on one finger. Zero.
What about the scene where Frodo and Sam are in Osgiliath and Frodo is nearly captured by the Nazgul? Nevermind the changes made to Faramir. That's a huge plot hole! Their whole mission depended on stealth and secrecy. If the Ringwraiths had seen Frodo with the ring, then Sauron would have sent all his forces there and it would've been game over! But instead they just walk away like it never happened.
I think it's established in the first movie that the ringwraiths can only see The One Ring when someone puts it on. Surely there are people with rings everywhere that they see but they don't know that any of them are The One Ring unless worn.
Exactly! And that THIS is supposed to be what changes Faramir's mind - Frodo offering the ring to the enemy on the first encounter. It's stupid af. All just for the big money shot of Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgiliath. Na, one of the biggest fails imho.
@@gunkulator1 But he slowed down and was about to grab Frodo. Why would he do that if he didn't see the Ring?
@@photophob Faramir didn't see what Frodo was doing. He was aiming for the lizard.
@@gunkulator1 They can sense or smell it though, at least as much is implied when they first meet a black rider on the road.
My main “gripe” is how Shire Salt was swapped from Galadriel’s Mallorn Seeds And Soil from what still held MUCH magic within them that he carried in a box that was also hand carved by the elves and presumably Gal herself. Like why not show that and how he’d want to plant it in the Shire? And that’s why he was worried about dropping it? Instead of that we got “maybe we’d be roasting a chicken one night or something.” SMH. He even replaced the party tree with it since scouring destroyed it.
Yay! I'm not the only one who refers to that scene as the "skullvelanche"! The impression it always left on me was "That's a LOT of skulls! Where are the rest of the bones from all the skeletons the skulls came from?"
My biggest peeve with the movies is Frodo in Osgilliath. Not only does a ringwraith seeing a halfing there (with the ring?!?) undermine the whole secrecy of their mission. But then Faramir says "at last we understand one another" and finally lets him go because... Frodo tries to hand the ring over the first chance he gets? It's all just so messy and doesn't make any sense.
I also dont like Gandalf throwing the ring envelope into the fire and Boromir holding the chain in the snow, as in my opinion it casually but technically makes them ring bearers.
A lesser but still silly thing is the fellowship arriving in Moria, seeing ancient desicated skeletons, and pulling out their swords / knotching arrows like the bodies are still warm.
The trilogy is still my absolute favorite piece of cinema in existence.
Best movies ever made, but in 13-ish hours of film, there's bound to be a few bad decisions. Not like the 1200 pages of the books didn't have a few dull moments or a bit of clunky writing.
Ive seen a horse being born and it reminded me of the uruk-hai scene. It was just as gross, but at least a cute baby horse came out of it instead of some hideous monster.😂
Try 'Invasion of the body snatchers'.
🤢In the books, Saruman was cross-breeding orcs and humans. Watching the uruk-hai come put this way is far better.🤢
To be fair wasn't that something Jackson was famous for in his other movies? So he just left his trademark.
I'm just going to count myself lucky to not spend a lot of time with heavily pregnant horses
@@Jess_of_the_Shire Not for the queasy.
As a big fan of Rohan it's what the films initially did with Theoden. Skulking away in the hills to avoid battle, "Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?". Eorl would certainly roll in his Simbelmynë crested grave mound.
On the other hand, Jackson did give Theoden some love by making him young and strong again after Saruman was “expelled” from him. In the book his purpose was renewed and he came to his senses, but physically he stayed the same old geezer.
@@Bramicus Same old geezer taking on and killing the Haradrim Captain in single combat?
Except that Theoden is strategically correct. His small force could not have joined battle with Saruman's army, so he was perfectly justified in doing what his people did in the past; retreat to his impregnable fortress whilst Rohan's forces are mustered together. Aragorn, Gandalf, and Legolas criticizing Theoden at this point simply makes no sense. What really was he supposed to do? As I said, his small force would have absolutely no chance against Saruman's army, they barely survive an encounter with some of Saruman's warg-mounted outriders. Edoras was not defensible against such an army, so Helm's Deep was the only realistic option.
Absolutely, @@deanzaZZR! He may have been old, but he was an ornery, experienced, highly skilled, battle-tested old coot, still deadly in combat. Don’t sell us old soldiers short!
What I meant was, in the book he didn’t suddenly change his actual physical appearance, except in how straight and confident he held himself, how strong and self-assured he suddenly looked, etc.
@@terrystewart1973 Are you talking film or book? In the book Theoden leads a strong force of calvary toward the Fords of Isen. On the way they encounter some Rohan soldiers fleeing from the Fords and with this new intelligence decides to make a stand at Helms Deep. This all seems exemplary and worthy of praise.
A small thing that really grinds my gears is when Legolas starts despairing before the battle of Helm’s Deep. That is so out of character for the book Legolas that it’s unreal. He was lighthearted and almost heedless of danger other than a few choice moments like the Balrog which is why it makes it such an impact when it does happen.
My biggest pet peeve is the scene where the Rohirrim charge at helm's deep. That mount they ride down is just absurdly steep for horses to run down.
You missed the point then.
@@milosnovak9640what is the point? (Genuinely curious)
@@ceramicsky14 The charge is supposed to be unrealistic in order to accentuate their heroism and guile. It is like reading myths where heroes do obviously impossible things often inspired by a supernatural force or a deity of some kind. On another note, the genre is called fantasy, and I find it odd that out of all the silly and absurd events in these films / books, someone would pick out this scene as particularly hard to believe or unrealistic.
The scene has a sort of historical equivalent with the Winged Hussars during the Battle of Vienna. About 18000 armored horses charged down a mountain to murder the Ottomans. It was the largest cavalry charge in history.
@@LocaChoca Their point was not that it's impossible for horses to charge down a mountain - clearly it is. Their point was that this specific mountain was way too steep for horses to charge down safely - which, incidentally, the moviemakers were perfectly aware of (they say so in "the making of" footage), it's just that they went for the spectacle over realism here. Which, sure, it's perfectly okay not to like, but I think it's important to know that it was a conscious choice, and not an ignorant one.
My two biggest beefs with the LotR trilogy are: eliminating the 'conspiracy' from Fellowship, and just having Merry and Pippin join Frodo and Sam by accident as a joke. And the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. I so wanted to see Angry Sam the Luddite in action!
I think that the failure to establish a friendship between Merry and Pippin and Frodo prior to the encounter with the Black Rider was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made. Every other change, even the ones I hate can be defended as needed to tell the story according to the movie maker's vision, but there is no motivation whatsoever for two random Hobbits that Frodo and Sam ran into while running from scary guys on horses to continue with the quest beyond Bree.
Fatty Bolger Lives!!!!
If the film has multiple endings that make it feel like it never ends I dont think adding the scouring would be something good
@@rksnj6797
You Sleep, Fatty Bolger Lives!
@@juanmarodriguez6010.
The films don't have multiple endings. They just take the chapters after the Ring's destruction, and rush through them such that each scene after the destruction seems that they could be an ending.
By following the books closer, this issue would not occur.
The worst moment for me is Denethor's ridiculous marathon run while on fire. Dude sure has a lot of stamina to run all the way from the Rath Dínen (which, if I recall, was on the 6th level and the other end of the city) up to that big platform that looks like they designed it for planes to land (and also lawnmowers clearly seem to exist because the grass is so perfectly uniform). And then there's also a convenient gap in the wall for him to jump! And to make it worse, it comes RIGHT after the most epic scene. I go from being in tears from the cavalry charge to laughing my arse off.
Goats. Goats kept the grass short (I'm guessing here)
Any culture that can produce swords can produce lawn mowers.
It's not the run but the fact that Gandalf lets him die. He's a fucking demigod, he could have saved Denethor but just is like "imao bye" as he jumps off the tower while burning to death. Extremely out of character.
@@johnwayne8494 Well, in the book he lets him die too but the death scene is metal as fuck. They really did the character dirty. Badly written, miscast and the whole palantir thing is never explained.
@@johnwayne8494 Not only did Gandalf let him die, I am pretty sure he whacks him with the staff and that is what causes him to fall into the fire in the first place.
Edit: just rewatched the scene, Shadowfax kicks him into the fire which may or may not have been Gandalf's intent
The reduction of Gimli to almost nothing EXCEPT comic relief is probably my biggest issue with the films.
The thing that's always bothered me the most is that everything's been so realistic up until the third movie but suddenly you have armies of 100,000s standing outside the capital of great empire and there's no outlying villages or farms or anything!?!?
Excellent point. The Pellenor Fields were homes and farms, not just flat, empty land.
The movies are loaded with pet peeves and cringes for me but I always try to remember all of the other attempts to bring this story to screen (either small or large) and that gives me the capacity to forgive them.
That would be pretty close to my list too. Not as traumatized by the Uruk-Hai scene. Gimli having a few more serious scenes, instead of constant comedy relief would have been nice.
“Hi! I’m Gimli! Remember how short I am? No? Time for another reminder!”
He has some quite serious scenes and in many cases he is shown as a true hero czcams.com/video/8joT0oFuGoI/video.html
Sees title card: "9 things I hate about LotR"
Instantly thinks: "Nine for Mortal Men doomed to Die"
I actually liked the scene where they turned into a rock. I was watching the movie with my brother, who hasn't read the books, and I was trying to explain that the cloaks have camouflage properties, and then that happened.
The way I interpreted it in the book was that the cloaks just make people's eyes skip over those who are trying to hide, and I wasn't really sure how, or if, they would show that on-screen.
I think the cloaks help to explain how the Hobbits could travel unnoticed in the wilderness. The rock scene, I think, was simply to remind the audience of the cloak's properties and existence.
Ngl this was the first time that I heard that people didn't like that scene
The whole green ghost sequence is one of my pet peeves. It's a part of a more general gripe I have about the use of CGI to tell a story that gets bolder and more obvious with each successive movie. The book describes Legolas looking back into the darkness to report on what he sees, and Aragorn later calls to voices in the darkness. And then the movies, being a visual medium, go fully into showing luminous green ghosts. I feel like they could have followed the book description more closely and come away with a far spookier scene to show for it.
That’s Peter Jackson for you.
I imagine they were under a lot of pressure to keep the movies from being even longer than they are. They cut out whole major things, and I imagine they scrutinized every scene that did make it in and have a talk about how they could shorten it.
Heck, anything more subtle could have worked.
Yes. Let the brain do the work of scaring. Rogan makes a great point about how monsters only partially shown are always scarier, and that CGI still doesn't pass the uncanny valley test for our fear.
Feel like this applies to the Balrog too. Imo they should have kept it shrouded in black smoke (maybe just shown a pair of fiery eyes) and it’d have been more mysterious/scary. Sometimes less is more.
Legolas killing the oliphaunt is one of my pet peeves. Not so much the scene itself but its placement in the movie. It comes right after Eowyn killing the Witch-king, a more significant moment, and totally upstages her. When I first saw Return of the King, Legolas got the bigger reaction from the audience. Meanwhile, I was sitting there thinking "Eowyn just took out the second-in-command of the entire villain army but this is what you cheer for?!"
My other pet peeve is Frodo tackling Gollum at the Cracks of Doom. I get it, they wanted Frodo to have more agency in that scene. But it totally misses the point of Tolkien's eucatastrophe moment where the combination of Frodo's pity for Gollum and a possible higher power stepping in causes the Ring's destruction.
I was also annoyed by the changes to Faramir, who had no desire for the Ring in the book. Though I'm a bit more lenient on this since it seems like he doesn't particularly want the Ring itself. He just wants to prove his worth to his father.
On release I watched film 3 at the cinema twice. The first time the audience applauded the oliphaunt scene, and so I missed Gimli's follow-up line, which was the best bit about that whole sequence. I understand why there was a bigger response to the oliphaunt scene, though - it is more visually impressive, and so it instinctively feels more impressive than taking out the Witch-King - who hadn't been properly built up to the threat he really was.
@@stephengray1344 Very true, which is why the scene annoys me. It is indeed more flashy and visually impressive so it was a mistake to put it directly after the Witch-king's downfall. It steals the thunder of what should be a bigger moment. At least in my opinion.
I hated the whole "Legolas is a master of parkour" bit. Sliding down a staircase on a shovel. Gracefully climbing up onto an oliphant's and firing multiple arrows into its brain. 👎
Seeing as how the Eldar have a different relationship with the world around them but they are literally symbiotically bound to it since their ancestors awoken at the Cuiviènen! And it’s already know they are VERY agile, nimble & light on their feet! It’s all throughout the legendarium. 25 books to be exact. So its a nice touch to include such things only those who know the more intricate details of the Quendi! Think of it, he’s been around for 3000 years already and isn’t perfecting his flexibility and acrobatics ? Wood elves were also known for these sorts of talents ontop of already being nonhuman
@@stefanlaskowski6660interesting ❤
After watching PJ's "The Hobbit" I find that his "Lord of the Rings" has a lot that can be forgiven...
"Perhaps I judged you too harshly"
Taking the shortest book and making three movis was silly money-grabbing. One may have been ok but the 70s cartoon was better. "down down to goblin town!!!"
More the fault of the studio than PJ himself I think
ABSOLUTELY!!!
Cheered so hard when Legolas jumped on the horse like that. That was just cool.
They shouldn’t have removed the scene on Mt. Doom where after a struggle between Frodo and Gollum for the ring, Sam sees Frodo as a wheel of fire cursing Gollum that if he ever touches the ring again he will cast himself into the fire.
People miss the importance of that. That was The Ring speaking to Gollum through Frodo and cursing him - giving him an order that he would obey a few minutes later inside the mountain, sealing the ring’s destruction.
That one moment recasts Gollum’s fall not as just an accident of pure dumb luck that destroys the ring, but as an deliberate but unintentional following of the order given him by Frodo and The Ring. Gollum touched the ring again. He was bound by oath and curse to cast himself into the fire, thereby destroying the ring.
No one had the power to resist the ring. Period. There was no way to ever destroy the ring, as the ring would always break the bearers will before the deed was done.
It was only the malice and the hubris of the ring that caused its destruction. Gollum never tried to destroy the ring. Nor could he have, but for the command given him earlier by the ring itself.
That was an amazing comment. It opened my eyes. Thanks a lot.
YES!
No, the Ring did not speak through Frodo; the Ring is not conscious; the Ring cannot curse anyone. Also, the only 'curses' are when people make oaths and break them, and it is Eru who upholds the consequences of breaking an oath. Such as Eru giving a 'nudge' to trip Gollum (whether a literal nudge or just Fate playing out on a grand scale according to Eru's will
Well spotted.
Okay so what really happened then.
Can’t believe you went with the Circles of Hell metaphor for the number 9 rather than the obvious Nazgûl. :)
My personal pet beef is Glorfindel being cut out. That guy was so terrifying the Naz'guhl decided to collectively jump into a flooding river, rather than to have to deal with him.
Also how they had Arwen by herself summon the flood that in the book took Gandalf and Elrond's combined powers to unleash.
Hearing you mention how the Uruk-hai scarred you as a kid, really made me feel seen. I remember having nightmares where the Uruk hai would chase me through a shopping mall. I would hide and he would be patrolling just a few feet away from me. It was so scary and still today when I see them in the movies I feel deeply unsettled.
So... I really understand how you must feel.
One of my biggest pet peeves of the movies were the elves at Helm's Deep. How nice of them to abandon their home, which was itself under assault by Sauron's forces, and help Rohan on a whim out of the goodness of their hearts. Not really sure how they found out that the Hunters were there, but I guess we can chalk it up to Elvish magic.
Also being better in battle than the old men and boys of Rohan not one of them survives the battle. God I hate the movies so much but that is one of the worst parts in them.
@@bendream544 and then there was Amazon….. if you watch the behind the scenes full documentaries 1-9 you’ll be amazed at actually how much work was put into this. How much love there was involved.
The only explanation I could think of for this whatsoever would be because the Helm's Deep sequence is fairly long, and PJ may have thought audiences would bore of watching a long battle with little consequences for the characters during said battle, so he felt like he had to bring in the elves (and Haldir) so he could put a death in there and add more emotion and stakes to the scene. Still not a great place to have elves arrive, though, since it also detracts from the feeling of desperation in the book.
I don't think Lothlorien was under assault *in the films* at that time. Regardless, Haldir and his hundred or so elven soldiers were sent to honor their ancient alliance with men, as he explains to Theoden on arrival. Also from a film making perspective, it was to make it clear to viewers unfamiliar with the books that the alliance between the Two Towers was a threat to all the peoples of Middle-earth, not just Rohan or the realms of men.
This was based on an actual line in the book where Legolas wishes for a company of archers from his home. Pete Jackson just did a bit of wish fulfillment, and while I rolled my eyes at the change, I at least knew it originated from something in the actual text.
I was markedly unhappy about Saruman's death (which was not even shown in the theatrical release). The scouring of the Shire (which was not filmed) is a very powerful scene in 'The Return of the King', and it brought home the fact that even the Shire was not truly safe from the war, and also Sam's repairing of the Shire would have been a great scene. Christopher Lee was very annoyed that Saruman's demise was not shown in the cinema, and I fully agreed with him.
Scouring of the Shire is of pivotal importance in the book, revealing, as it does, the evils of socialism or at least the evils of the abuse of socialism
I understand cutting the Scouring because it would take far too much time (it would have to be a four film series at that point), and the scene they filmed to replace it is a decent enough replacement (it does what it needs to in the narrative, as well as being somewhat important thematically) so not having it in the theatrical cut is a massive shame.
@@alekssavic1154 "I understand cutting the Scouring because it would take far too much time" And yet they add 3 hours of crap no one asked for.
@archvaldor I find the films to generally be pretty lean (the theatrical cuts at least, I consider those the final/"official" version, with the extended editions being basically "bonus features"); I'm not sure what you could trim out to fit 1-2 hours of what is basically an epilogue without undercutting the rest of the films. Not to mention how weird it would feel pacing wise to have a whole mini-story stuck in after the main climax and between the various "endings." So personally I'd put it in the same category of Tom Bombadil & the Barrow Downs: things that work and have a purpose in the books but would be very difficult to translate to film and even more difficult to fit into a film's limited runtime (without either cutting out a massive section of something more important or making it a four film series).
@@archvaldor bro they hardly added anything
Regarding the Frodo 'mortal wound' scenes, the biggest loss is when he gets stung by Shelob. In the book, the reader is close to being fooled and you are taken along the alternate route of Samwise becoming the ring bearer.
When Frodo dismisses Sam, it's a disservice to the book, because it's actually the point where they are very close, so much so, that Gollum comes close to repenting.
As for Legolas, there is the general flaw of portraying elves like Marvel superheroes, not to mention failing to distinguish the Dark Elves from the High Elves.
I LOVE the LOTR movies! Now, with that out of the way, the biggest thing about them that annoys me is the storyline departure involving Denethor and Faramir. I understand that to make the movie The Two Towers, Jackson felt that to tell the backstory of Denethor would take too much time and so the nuances of Tolkien’s story was lost. Faramir and Denethor are rewritten as Jackson felt could be more able to illustrate a tension and “movie plot” involving these two by changing the story (and use less time doing so). This part of the tale could not just be chopped out completely like Tom Bombadil, but it loses a lot in the reshaping of the story as compared with Tolkien’s narrative in the book. I believe that I just read the books too many times before seeing the movies. Yes I sort of understand what Jackson did, and grudgingly acknowledge the WHY of it all, but if all you know of LOTR is what you see in these (frankly gorgeous and technically amazing) motion pictures, I would strongly suggest that you go get the books and read how the story REALLY went.
Full Kudos to the cast and crew that built these fantastic achievements of these three movies, but there were some items that they didn’t quite portray the way that they deserved, in my humble opinion.
What do you mean 'movie plot'?
Faramir was given a character arc to work through. He was given a flaw, he struggled with it, and he overcame it and became a stronger and better person. That's just simple storytelling, not a 'movie plot'.
I won't say either book Faramir or movie Faramir is inherently better than the other. But lord, movie Faramir is my second favorite LotR character and is so much more interesting and meaningful to me than book Faramir.
my main problem with the movies is how they made Faramir the bad guy who tried to steal the Ring, rather than (as in the books) being offered the Ring and refusing.
I don't think the movies made Faramir a bad guy, per se. He wanted the ring so gain acceptance and love from his father, not for himself. He was able to refuse the rings temptations, but instead fell for the temptation of trying to please his father.
Faramir wasn't shown as a bad guy. Because it's a movie they had to show him being tempted by the ring so that he could refuse it. They had to SHOW the path he could have taken (steal the ring) to present it as a choice.
In a book you can TELL that stuff without it being on the surface, but in a movie it has to be less subtle.
@@blanketstarry7725 Well compaired to the book he IS a bad guy. Non, of his soldiers are diplaying the kind of violance the way they are doing in the movie. He is not just resisting the temptation he is more friendly in gerneral.
They made Faramir more interesting in the films by giving him an emotional conflict. In movies you sometimes have to do that to keep the character from being too bland. They had to do the same thing with the film Aragorn because the book Aragorn is such a piece of wood.
@@Finn_MacCoolthat doesn't excuse Faramir trying to force Frodo to give him the ring, then taking the Hobbits to the front line in the hope they'd get killed there...
I'm still sad that in the last movie the Army of the Dead wipes out Sauron's forces at Pelennor Fields. It means that the Rohan charge was all for nothing, as the good guys win anyway. In the books the weapon of the dead is fear, and would've done little vs. a land army. It worked to get the Umbar forces jumping off their ships, then all the hard fighting at Pelennor Fields had to be done by men (plus one wizard, one elf, two hobbits, etc.)
Like, it’s more realistic than Aragorn shows up with 20 + random dudes and a few spooky guys and they win the day. He literally brings in a whole army that relieves the pressure off Rohan and Gondor’s forces and saves them all just in time when all hope was lost.
That’s like saying Gandalf showing up with the rohirrim in the Two Towers undermines the people’s sacrifice fighting in helms deep while he was gone. If anything it does the exact opposite. It guarantees they weren’t in vain.
@@gandalfthewhite.5245 In the RoTK movie, if Minas Tirith digs a few ditches in front of the gate to slow the battering ram down a few hours then all that death is prevented. Aragorn shows up on time with the metaphorical A-bomb and instant victory! I think there's a good reason why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.
In your example from the Two Towers, in Eomer's charge the battle was still won by men. Had the defenders not done their part beforehand, the arrival of the cavalry might not have been enough. And yeah sure the huorns mopped up, but they didn't just show up and wipe the board.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree.
@@kblockschwenk They didn't know Aragon was bringing an army to their rescue, so why would they spend their time fortifying for reinforcements they don't know are coming.
@@helsby1797I don’t see how. The progress the orcs could make into Minas Tirith was limited by its layout. They were funneled into narrow street fighting up multiple levels, including several gatehouses. It doesn’t matter if their army is 10,000 strong or 100,000 strong, if only 50 men are able to fight at any given time the battle will take just as long either way.
This is why the Persians were stalled for days at Thermopylae despite the Greek force being tiny by comparison to the Persian ones. Only a few dozen, maybe a hundred, men could fight at once in that narrow pass and the vast majority of the Persian army was just sitting around pointlessly.
Rohan’s charge just draws off some of the unoccupied reserve forces. It makes sense for Rohan to do this, but from an overall narrative perspective it was an irrelevant action. Without Rohan, Minas Tirith would still have held out as long as it did and the ghosts would have destroyed Mordor’s army just as they did.
@@R0CKDRIG0To strain Mordor’s logistics, increase the risk of disease breaking out at the orcs’ camps, and to increase the time during which the garrison could fight from an advantage. History is full of sieges which were won without reinforcements because the attackers could not maintain supply lines, or caught diseases, or met with disaster trying to storm the walls. Any little thing that can be done to make victory harder for the enemy counts.
Also, Gondor is a big kingdom, not a single city. In the books the rest of Gondor is busy fighting off an invasion from the sea but does eventually show up to reinforce the Minas Tirith garrison.
“Go home Sam” is a controversial scene. It’s not for everybody. I think it’s one of the most poignant in the whole movie series along with the death of Gandalf, but hey what do I know…
I was expecting yet another video on movie vs book differencies, but you totally surprised me! You actually talked about the way you perceived the movies with their scenes and moods and pathos! It was really interesting and relaxing and I kinda agree with what you said!
I like the humor. What I didn’t like was how they treated Faramir or Denethor. I think that they portrayed Denethor like a villain and Faramir like a boy that just wanted his daddy to love him.
100% agree. In the book, Denethor is a very noble, if overly proud, figure whose falling to despair at the end is a tragedy. In the movies he's a f***ing buffoon from start to finish. How did Gondor even survive that long with such a loony idiot in charge? The whole bit with him refusing to light the beacons to summon Rohan was horrendous. Book-Denethor was two steps ahead of Gandalf and had already dispatched the red arrow before Gandalf even got to Minas Tirith.
I hate how it isn't addressed that the Stewards of Gondor are strong with Numenorean blood, similar to Aragorn. Gandalf points it out in the books that Faramir and Denethor show signs of their heritage.
In fact, in the books Denethor was not a villain but he was weak. For me it just underscored the reason he was a Steward and not a King. He was fit to lead Gondor during good times, but when the heat was on he didn't have what it took. And that wasn't his fault - he was what he was. Plus he'd been monkeying with the Palantir, exposing himself to corrupt influences. He didn't have the strength to do that on a regular basis and "keep himself."
@@KipIngram Denethor was a great man. He was aged prematurely because he was battling Sauron through the palantir. He in the end was broken in the conflict, but being broken in a war is not a moral failing. After he was broken by Sauron, he did less than good things, but he is less culpable than he would have been if he was in his right mind.
@@shbsuri I actually think you're right. He didn't start out a bad guy; probably the biggest mistake he made was to try to use the Palantir. He wasn't a King, so he wasn't one of the "intended users," and he was no match for Sauron. He contended with Sauron and he lost, and the RESULT of that was a person who caused some enormous problems. I can think of him as a "casualty" of the conflict. There's no doubt, though, that in the end he had to be responded to AS THOUGH he were an enemy.
What I found baffling is finding in the Fellowship of the Ring at the council of Elrond Aragon mentions coming across and finding Gollum at the Dead marches discovering his existence Gollum even bites him but he hands him over to the elves for questioning, the film never acknowledges this as we're told only Gandalf knows of him tracking them. When in fact Aragon is fully aware of him.
OMG that Frodo death montage was great. Just listening to the series of grunts and groans put a big ol’ smile on my face. Publish that as a short, I beg you.
Sauron (as an eye) was scariest when you couldn’t see the WHOLE eye from a distance floating in air, but rather nearly filling the screen against a dark background - depicted exactly as Frodo perceived him upon wearing the Ring inside the Prancing Pony. The top of the dark tower of Barad-dur should’ve been an enclosed room with narrow windows glowing red; and when the camera pulls in tight to any given window you’d get the raging eye filling the dark room just like the Prancing Pony scene.
The sending Sam away scene: not only does it not happen in the books, it doesn’t make sense!
Frodo would never trust Gollum (who hasn’t exactly proven to be trustworthy) over Sam. One of them has to be lying! Why would it be Sam?
I understood they had to show how Frodo was slowly being corrupted by the Ring, but that scene always felt like contrieved and forced drama to me.
The movies made it happen in a way so that Frodo would start being corrupted, but it's not even about Frodo, but it destroys the purpose of a line in the first movie, when Sam says he made a promise to Gandalf to never leave Frodo alone. Whatever Frodo could've said, Sam's response would be, "Deal with it. I'm not leaving."
Movie Frodo doesn't care who is telling the truth in that moment, he's just looking for any excuse to send Sam home, because as Galadriel says "Frodo begins to understand, the quest will claim his life", and he wants to spare Sam from sharing that fate. The ring is eating away at the last of Frodo's optimism and hope, and Sam's talk of a return journey is the last thread that Frodo can cling to - but now the food for that return journey is gone, and Frodo is now resigned to the quest being suicide. On top of that, both Gandalf and Galadriel warned Frodo that the ring would claim anyone who travelled with him, and Frodo thinks he is seeing the first evidence of this in Sam.
Best thing Movie Frodo thinks he can do at that point is to send Sam away and give him a chance at survival, while he shoulders the burden alone - a decision he had clearly been resigned to from the moment they escaped Moria.
Of course it makes no sense for him to trust Gollum over Sam. That's the point. The ring was breaking him, and Gollum knew how to abuse that
That’s… the point. The ring is corrupting him and Gollum is manipulating frodos sympathy for him against Sam.
The cloak/stone cover thing always bummed me out extremely when I was little. I just couldn’t imagine, that not one those warriors would have seen them falling down the hill, covering themselves up and climbing back up. Thanks for the great video, once again
The loss of the surprise in Aragorns appearance at the end of ROTK is worth it for the line : “YOU WHILL SUFFAr mE”
I'm amazed that you mentioned the Ghosts but not the fact that they just murder the entire host of Minas Morgul almost on their own.
Saruman at that time point was not wearing a white robe but a robe of many colors so any dirt would just blend in.
Also, was Peter Jackson chary of hinting at the repulsive nature of all that the rainbow flag stands for?
My pet peeve is when the Mouth of Sauron refers to Narsil (he was ignorant of the forging of Anrduil) as a "broken elvish blade" when everyone knows it was forged be Telchar, a dwarf.
In defense of The Mouth, it kinda was, as essentially a Elvis heirlooms (well, alright, Númenórean) so why you're right the smith was a Dwarf, He may still be right and simplifying a little bit.
This or Aragon was annoyed just like you and THAT'S WHY he killed the Herald.
@@ultimateshipper8997Yes. And The Red Book channel just recently did a deep dive on him which honestly covers so much other ground in such a way that not many others channels have been able to do. He goes beyond the cookie cutter information videos about him where he goes deep! ❤
@@Makkaru112
I'll check it out!
If i were to make a counter analogy, the Statue of Liberty is an American monument, yet it was made by the French. Furthermore, Narsil is a word from Quenya, just because the older elves of Middle Earth know the origin of the weapon doesn't mean a Black Númenorean would know its history from thousands of years ago. All he would be expected to know is the sword has an elvish name and had severed his master's fingers. The Mouth of Sauron didn't own a copy of Tolkien's extended works or internet access to be able to identify all of the important artifacts of Middle Earth made in ages long past.
@@colbunkmust You mean the Palantirnet didn't have its own version of Wikipedia?
I have so many questions about the 'birthing' of the Uruk-hai and I desperately don't ever want to know the answers.
Have you listened to the BBC Radio4 (1981) version of LOTR ? If so what are your thoughts ? Its my favourite non book version.
I liked the rock thing. It was a good way to visualize the vague written concept of the cloaks looking like what they need to look like for the circumstances.
The only problem is that, contrary to the book, it is never explained previously in the films that elven cloaks have this ability to hide you from unfriendly eyes. When I first saw the movies I hadn't yet read the book and was really confused by this moment and thought it was really silly and cheap.
@@silvanloher5912except it was explained in the movies by Celeborn in Lothlórien as the fellowship was leaving. He said something like "Never before have we clad strangers in the garb of our people. May they shield you from unfriendly eyes". Go watch that scene again.
Just to be clear, the way the scene where Frodo covers them with a cloak is shot or edited makes it seems completely impossible that they were not seen by the Easterlings. It was set up by Celeborn but that still didn't make it believable enough for me. They could have been more subtle with how they hid from the unfriendly eyes, not just pulling a cloak over you with very obvious and loud motions 1,5 seconds before they stop to stand one step away from you.
The cloaks were of elvish origin and do have magical powers
@@albertdale5101 elven cloaks DONT have magical powers as all elven things
it just technologues of an obscure nature for other Middleearth's nations that create the illusion
and this is also explained on video
The scouring of the shire not being included is my biggest complaint.
I'm glad they cut it out. Would have added another hour to the movie AFTER the ring's destruction.
@@teastrainer3604 It could have been an entire separate movie.
@@teastrainer3604 Basically Jackson was making the films for a "modern audience" which means people with the attention spans of 10-year-olds. From a commercial standpoint he probably made the right decision, but it makes the movies fall far short of the books as art.
@@brucetucker4847 It was 11 hours long. He didn't make it for people with short attention spans. And to add another hour after the climax of the quest would have violated every form of dramatic structure.
Nah, the scouring of the shire would be lame af in a movie
I remember when I saw Fellowship, I was not pleased the goblins in Moria could wall crawl like Spiderman.
Thank you for creating these videos on my favourite films, you make me laugh and your points are well thought of and balanced. :)
A pet peeve of mine is the scene where the Orcs attack Osgiliath across the river at night. They are carrying torches! Really smart way to use the cover of darkness...
I never thought of that! I guess I was distracted by the arrow that stuck right through a breastplate, and so there's no point to wearing armor at all.
Also, what's with the WWII-style Higgins boats? We're they attacking Omaha Beach?
@falloutfan2502 them Gondorian arnorers really sucked didn't they
I've read a lot of the comments here. Not mentioned:
1) No change of tides. The missing miasma from Mt Doom and the change of winds with eagle clouds is such powerful symbolism that needed inclusion.
2) The Rohirim pulling up to dress lines, blow horns and give speeches -- while the orcs built a defensive front. In the book, Rohan bypassed a blocking force a blind-sided Sauron's army.
3)Throwing an entire stone tower with a trebuchet.
2:22 Confession Time: I fast forwarded most of the Frodo/Sam scenes on subsequent rewatches as a kid. They’re just so bland compared to the others. And frankly, the entire 6th book where it’s just them walking through Mordor, is difficult to get through. It’s the book equivalent of a video game walking simulator.
OMG I just discovered you and thought you were amazing before coming across the arrested development reference. Nice!
The things that bugged me the most:
* Gandalf faces the Witch-king in Minas Tirith, and Gandalf's staff is broken in the movie and not the book. Just seemed wrong given what Gandalf is.
* The end of the battle of helms deep. Missed the forest of tree-like Huorns which just appears overnight and then the orks are toast. ☹☹Would have liked to have seen that on screen.
* In the fight at Amon Hen I think Aragorn had too many Uruk-hai to fight all at once. I think in the book most of them had run away with the halfling captives before Aragorn arrives.There ought to be a limit to how many Aragorn could handle at once.
I honestly really didn't like the movies....I remember being in the movie theater for fellowship and when the scene on weathertop came I remember just being so disappointed....why is there blaring, unnatural light (all of Jackson's night scenes are terribly lit)? Why do the Nazgul look like laundry on a clothesline when they should be shadowy, ethereal forms? Why are Merry and Pippen the two stooges? When I got to the scene with Legolas surfing down the stairs at helms deep I was literally embarrassed when I finally watched Two Towers on TV years later.
I guess what I wanted was serious movies, aimed toward an older audience like the books (though I don't mind plot changes so long as the same demeanor is kept) but instead they felt like action popcorn flicks for teenage boys....like take the "Meat's back on the menu boys" scene....when they literally show entrails flying through the air, it's so campy and corny I just couldn't take it, but I feel like that feeling is throughout the all the movies the entire time....and don't even get me started on Elijah Wood's objectively bad, melodramatic over-acting....the face he makes when he's stung by shelob is a perfect example.
BTW, Aragorn doesn't fight any Orcs in the books during the breaking of the fellowship, at least not on page
@@post-leftluddite You've articulated my thoughts almost exactly.
The Huorn scene is in the extended edition of Two Towers.
@@post-leftluddite It was implied that he, along with Legolas and Gimli were fighting a bunch of them in the forest during it, they just focused it all on the viewpoint of Boromir, Merry and Pippin in the books.
I think Arwen's beefed up role was just to pace it so they didn't have to introduce Glorfindel, who otherwise doesn't show up in the story. Watching a film where a guy shows up, performs a highly important role, then just exits stage left for the rest of the trilogy might have felt jarring. I get that her diminished role later might seem like they've forgotten the character, but I think they handled it well enough.
Adding Arwen also helps to explain the character of Aragorn and his motivations better.
If she could later be more impoertant, likre the deam stuff is good but she could be more present and be like an enchanter that saves them several times? Vaguely. like i love her using magic first, she could done have vague minor but important things there to be more badass. .
For fake Frodo Deaths, don't forget falling off the ledge with Gollum in Mt. Doom.
Hi, What about the Faramir? In the book he understands that Frodo is on important journey and helped him but in the film he wants to bring him to Minas Tirith. Why?
Maybe to talk and more verbalize and he also gets tempted because jackson really wannted to hammer home that anyone can be tempted, minus sam. Which works.
That and it had to be verbalized and frodo and sam and gollum have someone to talk to?
The character was changed. He was given a flaw- wanting to prove himself to his father and be worthy of his love- and that was exploited by the Ring (as most, if not all, men would be exploited by the Ring). And he grew stronger and overcame that flaw. It's just a solid character arc which, imo, makes him more interesting than book Faramir. Actually makes him one of my favorite characters.
In the books you are laughing with Gimli, in the movies you are laughing at Gimli
Nope. I always laughed with Gimli in the movies. He is not a laughingstock, he is endearing and wholesome. On top of still being a badass warrior always ready to fight and a loyal friend to the end, he's such a joy to be around. I want him as my best friend. How is that a laughingstock?
Book fans have always confused me with this one. I have never of anyone who loved the movies or even watched them who thinks Gimli is just silly comedy relief. Everyone loves him.
@@ackyfacky4332 I felt that way, even as a kid, long long before reading the books. Gimli never really felt tonally consistent with everything else going on, only made worse in the extended cut. I still love him, always been a fan of fantasy dwarves, but I admit he definitely felt like comedy relief in the films.
My biggest problem is the army of the dead actually being able to kill people and fighting in the battle for minas tirith
i always felt like it totally undermines the sacrifices of the humans and their victory
Yeah, isn't there a line in the book that their greatest weapon was fear and it was strange that the armies of Mordor should be defeated by fear?
@@bemusedkidney8619 Fear--fear and surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope . . .
I disagree. I thought this was underplayed in the book. The heroes were far too outnumbered to do very much, even when their internal divisions had been healed. This and the despatching of the Witch King were both unforeseen and must have really put the wind up Sauron. The only rational explanation was that Aragorn had seized control of the ring and was a serious new dark rival.
When does the Jess of Arrakis channel start? And the braid works :)
Jess, I just recently discovered and LOVE your channel! I read the hobbit for the first time in the 5th grade, WAY back in 1982 (yes I’m old). I am so impressed that a young lady like yourself is so versed in all things LOTR and articulate, even elegant I would say in your delivery. You and many of your fans give me hope for the future scholarship of this timeless masterpiece. Thank you so much, ma’am, for your hard work and the high quality of videos! Blessings!
You're not old! In 1982, I was a year away from my 10 year high school reunion!
Now *that's* old!
Gandalf spinning on his head is my fav moment from all the films, it's so hilariously bizarre
The first film is so good with weird closeups and funny special effects like that. Very much from Jackson's B-horror film days
You made me imagine Saruman in overalls. It will take self-reflection to figure out whether I'm better or worse off for it.
On the topic of the skullvalanche, I'm fine with it because I remember how I felt about the theater cut where it goes from "What say you?" to Aragorn arriving to Minas Tirith and that always felt like it was missing an intervening step. So I'm happy to have anything there, even if it's them swimming through a river of skulls.
The problem with the army of the dead is that the dead wanted to be released from their curse. Aragorn was their last chance for that release. In the book, Aragorn repeatedly stresses the need for speed. Any delay would be disastrous. The dead don't hinder the passing of Aragorn and hois companions, they only scare the hell out of them, except the elves and Dunedain. So the skulls scene is really a serious logical plot hole.
As I said, I only consider it better than jumping from before the dead agree to help to Aragorn showing up with them at the battle. I am by no means saying it's good.
At the Oscars ceremony, Billy Crystal said: "This movie has eleven nominations, one for each of its endings."
As for Frodo's fake deaths, the stab wound he receives on Weathertop ultimately does prove fatal, which is why he sails away at the end(s).
5:44 -- RE: Clown Knife, "Used By Clowns... Or For Clowns?"; See also: Spike Jones, "Pal Yat Chee". Select quotation: "...he grabs a knife / then stabs the louse who stole his spouse / and then he stabs the lady, and himself. / T'ain't very sanitary."
Great video. The worst moment was when Frodo offers the ring to the Nazgul! Who decided to put that in? It went completely against the entire concept of the LOTR, which is that Frodo, in stealth, takes the ring to Mt. Doom, while Sauron looks outwardly for it. If Frodo had, in the book, showed the ring to the Nazgul, then the nazguls and Sauron would have known immediately where it was, and stopped everything to hunt down Frodo. There is zero chance that the Nazgul would not have recognized the ring (instead, he'd be drawn to it) and would not have put everything aside to get it. The movie scene was a shockingly stupid addition. Almost ruined the movies for me.
But the Nazgul don't actually SEE, if not shadows and shapes. They could sense the Ring, but not actually see it. Only if Frodo put it on they would have seen him AND the Ring, because he woul have entered the shadow world.
That said, the scene is still pretty stupid, but because it doesn't make sense AFTER that: so Faramir choose to leave Frodo go to Mordor because he almost fell to the power of the Ring and gave himself to a Nazgul?? WTF? Where is the logic in that choice?
Truth is, all that sequence, no, all that story is stupid, and all just because PJ had to make Faramir tempted by the Ring, and not just for a moment, but deeply enough to decide to send it to his father. They could have him knowing about the Ring before capturing Gollum (like in the book) and make him tempted to send it to Minas Tirith, then being horrified by what it did to Gollum and deciding it's best that that thing be destroyed.
I've mentioned this before. The game would have been up, right then and there. If the Nazgul know where the ring is, so does Sauron and the battle at Pelanor fields would not have happened. Sauron would have his troops scour the lands between Osgiliath and Mordor, retrieved the ring and won Middle Earth. Cheap thrill in an otherwise great set of films.
@@johnwerkheiser5555If they knew the ring was at Osgiliath, they would assume it was on its way to Minas Tirith, which is very near, and they would hasten their attack on Minas Tirith, to prevent Denethor or, worse still, the rumoured Aragorn from having the time to learn use the ring against them.
@@adamzain6770 I beg to differ. Sauron would know exactly where the ring was and who bore it. All his might would focus on the ring, surrounded by his forces. Minas Tirith would fall as soon as he recovered the ring, so attacking it without the ring would have been (and was) the beginning of the end for Mordor.
Sauron is expecting them to use the ring. He knows it’s on it’s way to somewhere and is being carried by a hobbit. When his servant finds it at Osgiliath, with Frodo amongst Faramir’s group, he will assume it’s being taken directly to Denethor, who is only a few miles away at this point. It never occurs to Sauron that anyone would try to destroy the ring, so he will think it’s either being hidden or, more likely to him, is going to be used against him. It is perfectly logical that it is passing through Osgiliath on it’s way to Denethor. The last thing Sauron expects is for them to send the ring directly towards him.
When the orc says "looks like meats back on the menu" makes me imagine an orc restaurant.
Never thought about it, but now that you mention it. Considering their lifestyle, and the fact that they were almost literally born yesterday, how do they even know what a menu is?
Jess, this is the first of your videos that I've seen, and I just want to say that you are *very* good at this! I love the Lord of the Rings films, and the book, and while I may find a few scenes that annoy me, the movies are still magnificent, time after time. I'm waiting for an *extended* extended version, where each film is six hours long!
My favorite scenes include Samwise's speech to Frodo at, I believe, Osgiliath, the line with the dead where the leader says "The dead do not suffer the living," and Aragorn replies "You *will* suffer me!" and finally, "My friends, you bow to no one."
Awesome video!
There are few things I hate more than the "Go home, Sam" scene. It boils my blood.
Making Farimir be tempted by the ring, having Treebeard be easily fooled by the hobbits (into dropping them where he did so he would see the dead trees) and other than smart, having Gandalf be less wise than he is in the book, giving lines to characters that do not speak them in the book, as well as, changing Gimli into a comic relief character on several occasions are my biggest complaints. However, there are so many things they kept from the book that I have all the extended editions of the movies. :@) For years I have been saying they got the look of middle earth right and no one has disagreed. :@)
The character assassination of Faramir wounded me.
One thing I don’t love about the extended edition of rotk is that we see the ghost king agree to fight. I’m pretty sure in the book this is left ambiguous until Aragorn shows up at the battle of the pelenor fields. It works better in the theatrical where he shows up unexpectedly and adds a little dramatic tension when he ends on “what say you?”
The ghost army wasn't at the Pelenor Fields in the book. They only fought the corsairs. But I do get your point.
The book- The WK and his army never get into the city. The main door is breached, Gandalf on Shadowfax denies him entry but before anything happens Rohan's horn call and charge happens so the WK leaves to deal with a sudden mess up to his plans. Pippin shows up to tell G about Denethor making G choose to aid on the battle field or leave the WK to cause great loss foreshadowing Theoden's death. G helps save Faramir, Prince Imrahil takes over leading the city forces onto the field while Rohan hits in the rear of the WK's army. WK kills Theoden, Eowyn kills WK, Eomer later finds Theoden dead and Eowyn presumed dead. He makes the Death, ride to ruin and the world's ending speech overextending the lines in his reckless suicide attack in grief over Eowyn. Then Aragorn and fresh infantry forces arrive by river, not a ghost army.
Are there any Book Edits of the movies as the book edit of The Hobbit, please?
4:04 Good Lord - imagine you're watching a LOTR adaptation and they literally show Smeagol's balls...wtf
The scene with the magically disappearing Sam and Frodo has always annoyed me as well, but something tells me that GOB would appreciate that $3000 elven cloak. Come on!
I mean, you pay $4000 for a cloak, you want to use it to its fullest! C’mon!
Recently watched the extended editions for the first time. I can’t remember if gimli’s ghost-blowing, skull-crunching scene was in the theatrical. But that is the one scene that I truly feel deserved to be cut lol
*but hold on, Legolas taking a shot at the wargs and then the rolling flip onto the horse- that’s the only Legolas shenanigans that I love
8:47 Was the audio partially cutting out there on purpose?
Many great reactions here, i will add my own pet peeve aswell!
- Shelob being just a big spider. Its more a 'spiderlike' monster imo. she should have been far more gruesome looking.
- Eowyn's line while killing the witch king 'but iam no man'. She is from the race of men. There is some wordplay here with gender/race that annoys me.
- Denethor being much crazier than in the books.
My ultimate gripe is the character assassination of Faramir. Love the movies though. LOVE them.
Regarding Saruman's white robe, lest not forget the words: “For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!'
I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered."
So, probably not too worried about being a bit tainted by mud and orc-goop
Saruman the tie-dyed?
How did shelob sting thorugh the mithril t shirt???
“…guy heaving in the background…” That’s hilarious
I don't have many issues with the films, but I'd love to see a version that is literally 100% faithful to the books, a 1 to 1 adaptation. I know it would probably be the biggest flop in the history flops, but I'd love to see the ents marching out of the moot, and Aragorn gathering fighters to his banner as he passes along the coast south of Gondor, and the battle of the pelenor fields with actual fields. My big issue with big CGI battles in films is that they often take place in huge open grassy areas with no detail.
I do wonder what would happen if all movies that are based on books had a rule that every sentence in the book has to be represented in the movie.
Frodo sending Sam away does NOT serve the story as a whole. It does the exact opposite. THAT'S why you hate watching it, because deep down it goes against the nature of their relationship.
It serves the story in that it reemphasizes the increasing effect the ring is having on Frodo. It's a parallel to Bilbo's reaction to Frodo in Rivendell because in both cases it's so out of character and so something else must be at work.
I want to know the mass of elvish arrows. I have never shot an arrow that was capable of knocking a target backwards, and in some cases off of their feet entirely. Arrows also do not kill that quickly, unless it passes directly into the heart.
I have just discovered this channel and am finding it to be delightful.
And it makes you wonder about Legolas' arrow supply. How many does he carry, how does he get them back intact or where he gets new ones. Has someone watched the movies and counted how many arrows he shot? In the book he at some point mentions having to resort to orc-arrows, but eve a super-rookie-archer like myself knows that the best bow doesn't shoot well if your arrows are shite.
Whatever stains Saruman gets on his robes are some orc launderer's problem.