Debunking CinemaSins' EWW FOTR: Reupload to Address the Critics

[@Richard_Nickerson]

39:39 Also, Galadriel lived for centuries in a world where the only natural light were the stars and the Trees of Valinor. She literally watched the very first sunrise ever. And the thing that led to the creation of the Sun and the Moon was a violent act by the ultimate evil that led to the doom specifically of her family, being of the Noldor. She has a much different view of what a sunrise is than we do. Edit: Also, the Maia who bore the sun was described as "terrible to behold".

[@leithskilling552]

I really dislike CinemaSins actually: I want to find them funny, but their insistence on sinning movies for hypothetical flaws, or being hypocritical - sinning for exposition in one scene, then sinning for too little exposition - make it really difficult for me to find them funny and not just whiny. I agree with your whole video. There are some notable flaws in the Peter Jackson movies, of course, and they’re worth pointing out, but sinning a movie for easily explainable things just doesn’t sit well with me.

[@patrickglover7506]

I agree with you.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

100%

[@77mpickett]

They used to be funny at first before all the filler and bad jokes and contrived sins to lengthen the video. I follow several cinemasins get sinned videos. No one could do it better on this top than the geek

[@wolverinefangowings]

Good stuff. The funny/ironic thing about your addition to the first sin is that CS routinely dings the start of movies for too much exposition, then essentially did the opposite here.

[@WG55]

There are a number of excellent channels that point out the flaws of CinemaSins. I would recommend Th3Birdman and bobvids.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

Bobvids stopped doing it a long time ago, though I do still recommend watching what they did make. Jay Exci is another excellent one, though they also have stopped making them. They made far more than Bob did though.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@Dangangela6565 Yeah, the SinsSins series on Jay Exci is top notch.

[@poeterritory]

24:00 I'd say that the reason why they didn't kill the hobbits in the book is because they can't see people. It's all shadows to them. By willing Frodo to put on the ring, which he does, he enters into their world and is an easier target. Also, the Morgul blade was used, not to kill him, but to make him one of them. Suspect they only had one (who knows how complex those things might be to make) and so they couldn't just go about stabbing at random.

[@poeterritory]

@Private Joker Well, in the book, Aragorn defended them and they only had five of their number. That apparently was the thing that stopped the success. The movie.. well, I could never watch that without cringing.

[@poeterritory]

@Private Joker Well, no arguments from me then lol.

[@deanwilson7373]

CinemaSins tendency is to lean towards lack of critical thinking skills, for example, as you state in you example of Galadriel’s phrase: "Terrible as the morning". Knowing that Tolkien was a linguist it shouldn't take much of a leap to realize is using a more archaic form of the word? The 'older' meaning of Doom meant Fate, and Faith was used instead of Imagination. A little knowledge can go a long way.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

Also, Galadriel lived for centuries in a world where the only natural light were the stars and the Trees of Valinor. She literally watched the very first sunrise ever. And the thing that led to the creation of the Sun and the Moon was a violent act by the ultimate evil that led to the doom specifically of her family, being of the Noldor. She has a much different view of what a sunrise is than we do.

[@TheRedComyn]

Brilliant! I really enjoyed your critique. As you say, you have every right to criticize any art form.

[@patrickglover7506]

I didn't have an issue with your first video. You are a great KZbinr. Keep it up.

[@edgardtheknowledgekeeper3119]

I was wondering if you could make a video addressing Nostalgia Critics video Top 11 Dumbest Lord of the Rings moments. Like addressing what you agree with and disagree with. Because while they do address a few things wrong with the movies they also point out things that aren't really wrong with it much like Cinemasins.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I have considered that, actually, but I no longer have a way of downloading youtube videos. If you know of a legit way to do that I’ll make that one a priority. :)

[@bookl0ver]

Tolkien Lore If you can't get the video from KZbin you might be able to get that video from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com That's where most of Nostalgia Critic's stuff was originally uploaded.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

So that redirects to KZbin, and ChannelAwesome.com seems to just link to the videos on KZbin....

[@bookl0ver]

Tolkien Lore Ah right, sorry man. Thought it would work. :/ I'm out of ideas then.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I think you can download videos if you have KZbin Red or whatever but unfortunately I’m kinda running this channel on a shoestring.... 😩

[@superherbs369]

I'm with ya! Keep all the satire together and separate from real criticism. And the Eagles... servants of Manwe correct? So that eagles are powerful magical beings and are therefore tempted to take the ring and are very much at risk of corruption. Am I on track with this train of thought?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

That’s possible, but there are other reasons. Check out my video on why they couldn’t just fly to Mordor. ;)

[@TTHBLOX_]

I just discovered these vids yesterdsy and now you do a new one? Great!

[@lionlord8784]

And I thought that it was obvious for everyone why the 5 Nazguls in the Watchtower approached the 4 Hobbits so slow in the movie and in the book. Hint:They were in the past mighty kings. In the Present they are the MOST terrifying entities and the Hobbits are just like insects in the Nazgul´s eyes and how you would feel if insects make fool of you for many many days???

[@anarionelendili8961]

I am way late to this party, but... Again, a very nice video. A couple of minor comments/nitpicks (which probably were addressed in the other comments): 1.) Sauron's Eye: I agree that it is making Gandalf look like an idiot. But as you pointed out in another video about why Gandalf didn't realize things sooner, it could be a way to handwave it similarly that Gandalf could have just sensed that this was one of the lesser rings, made with Sauron's help, rather than the One Ring. But yeah, unforced error on the movie's part. Gandalf was obviously already suspicious of the Ring, thanks to Bilbo's actions. You could cut the scene of Gandalf trying to pick it up and the story would work. 2.) The gatekeeper is killed in Bree, not in the Shire. That being said, 100% agree with your criticism of this scene in the movies: it doesn't happen that way in the books, it is counter to the way things do happen and it is stupid for the Ringwraiths to do this. 3.) Terrible Galadriel: My beef is more with the way they portrayed Galadriel's 'Queen of the Middle-earth' form (and then reused it in the Hobbit). The book version is much better: `And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair! ' She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad. 'I pass the test,' she said. `I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.'

[@Caradepato]

I mean, I agree the book version is better but how in earth would you film that?

[@phoule76]

I've never seen a CinemaSins video, but the narrator's voice sounds awfully glib and smarmy to be able to make it through one.

[@poeterritory]

That's part of the joke. I think they do a pretty good job for what they set out to do.

[@paulheap1982]

@@poeterritory no, they're fucking awful.

[@emilsazanda]

The Dawn is terrible in the sense as Ivan IV of Muscovy is called Ivan the Terrible, where terrible means terrifying, naught else...

[@DanteKenchi]

alot of sins in a movie are created by cinemasins to have more sins on the counter. He makes fun content to watch but yes, he's very obstute about the creation of sins, he even sometimes adds 100 sins just for a single event xD

[@Richard_Nickerson]

You paddin' the sin count, bro?

[@kyronlazarus9029]

Your channel needs more recognition

[@porkflaps4717]

Once Gandalf was flying off the top of Orthanc there wasn't a damn thing Saruman could do about it. No partial credit for Cinemasins. You get no credit Cinemasins, outside of swinging haymakers at straw men, as the weak-minde always do.

[@hawgryder13]

What was Strider doing at Weathertop? He said he was "looking around" to be polite, he was having a bowel movement, duh.

[@georg.camerone56]

Your comments are terribly accurate.... :)

[@davepyl]

I always thought cinemasins intended to be taken seriously.

[@thefootballer777]

Some of the sins, funny or not, are clearly intended to be jokes

[@porkflaps4717]

Ever wonder why you can see blue sky behind the moon during the day?

[@constantine9268]

I only have one question is that lipstick you're wearing

[@KeldorDAntrell]

Most if not all of these sins are the fault of Peter Jackson's terrible directing e.g. having the black rider kill a hobbit who could have been a great source of information. The black rider "being bad at his job" isn't actually a sin because *they aren't fully in the world of the living* and it's broad daylight at the time he is trying to find the hobbits which makes it more difficult for them to see i.e. they are beings of shadow, not light, and are weaker in the latter and stronger in the former. Also, no, the ring isn't calling to Sauron. It wants to get back to its master. There's no calling involved in this. It can alter its size slightly in an attempt to get itself lost by its owner; it can exert an influence on the one who possesses it to wear it or remove it. Beyond these things, it can do nothing. Sauron is the one calling out to the ring. Then, the black riders are not Sauron. The books, and even the lamentable films, make it clear that the real danger is if anyone *wears* the ring. ONLY THEN does it become obvious to Sauron and the Nazgul because then the wearer partially enters the nether world from whence the ring wraiths come; it's why, when wearing the ring, the wraiths become as easily visible to the wearer as he does to them. Hence Gandalf's warning not to *use* the ring. So as long as the ring isn't in use, the ring wraiths will have no great ability to detect it. What they *do* have can be assumed from the fact that they have been tasked to track down the ring i.e. finely tuned senses to magical emanations, to evil and goodness, to things close to, or in, their dark realm or connected to their dark master. This is signified by the pausing and sniffing. That Peter Jackson was heavy-handed with his filming of this isn't the fault of Tolkien's story. Putting the ring in a container is simply a stupid idea. Whoever possesses the ring comes under great pressure to weild it for power. Gandalf didn't dare to take it and he explained precisely why - even in the films. So he couldn't put it in any container and if he could he'd still be the 'possessor' of it and so it would play on his mind wherever he hid the container; before long he'd return to it and put it on. This would be true of anyone who took it to 'lock it away'. Ring wraiths are *not* frightened of water. Only in Peter Jackson's stupid film does he imply this by having them skid to a halt at the ferry as if they're vampires. In the book, they ride into the deep ford of Rivendell and attempt to cross there. Lighting the fire on Weathertop in a manner that would hide it was just Aragorn being sensible given that the enemy has servants of mundane variety, such as orcs, who might see it. Even then, it's better if the ring wraiths themselves don't see it, if it's possible to keep the fire out of easy sight. As for Aragorn leaving the hobbits, were Jackson an even halfway decent director he could have given him a perfectly reasonable explanation for leaving them e.g. looking for herbs and roots (such as Kingsfoil), collecting stones to leave a sign for other rangers, gathering more wood for the fire, or even having a call of nature. Only a bad director would leave the audience having to come up with their own explanations to justify what would otherwise be stupid. The waiths 'take their time' because Gandalf is battling them with his mind and magic from afar; again Jackson paid scant attention to the book and ended up making a stock B-movie action scene that intelligent viewers find unconvincing. Elrond couldn't fight Isildur because he was as formidable a warrior as he, not to mention a comrade in arms. There's even the possibility that Elrond is at that very moment painfully aware of the danger of the desire to take the ring for himself should he attempt to take it; and *certainly*, had he done so, the ring would exert all its power over him to *compel* him to keep it for himself. NO ONE was ever able to even give up the ring except Bilbo (and that only happened with the support and counsel of Gandalf) let alone *destroy* it. here, CinemaSins simply doesn't properly understand the ring's influence over the mind of its possessor. That taking the ring by force could break Isildur's mind is just yet another possible reason why Elrond doesn't attempt to take the ring. "Let the ring bearer decide!" - only a problem because Jackson stuck two fingers up once again at Tolkien's story and changed it unnecessarily. Note: 'Homage' is pronounced 'hom-idge' i.e. in a way that would rhyme with 'porridge'. It's one of the most mispronounced words in the English language.

[@KeldorDAntrell]

@@Dangangela6565 then I must be the only person who realises the truth then. are you saying I'm wrong? If so, I'd like to hear you reconsile the facts that Jackson expressely promised Tolkiien fans that he would be true to Tolkien's book yet indisputably altered everything (and that just might be *literally* everything) that he could in his adaptation e.g. changed Gimli from a noble dwarven hero into a clown suffering short jokes the entire movie, turning Legolas into a character so fast and dextrous he could give Spider-Man a run for his money, and butchering the dialogue and the character of Aragorn by having him played by a man known to be especially attractive when Tolkien explicitly stated that he was anything but attractive. I could write reams about how shite Jackson was with these movies (and if all his success didn't come from simply not dropping the ball adapting the most successful story ever written short of the Holy Bible how come he's not reproduced any of that success with the rest of his shitball output?). Take for example the way he had Pippin accidentally knock a skeleton attached to a bucket and chain down the well in Moria instead of have him doing what Tolkien wrote in the book i.e. *deliberately* dropping a stone down the well. Do you understand that this was a change that wasn't necessary (for all the people who parrot the ignorant idea that films can never be the same as the films from which they are adapted)? Do you not realise that that is altering the very character that Tolkien gave to the hobbits - an actual racial trait of curiosity - for no good reason but to pander to his own ego that he knows better than Tolkien how to write stories (a man who has never written a book in his life as opposed to an actual Oford professor of language). So come on. Tell how I'm wrong. Just because most people are sheep that merely take up the populist opinion doesn't make them right.

[@detinker913]

Can you name one book adaptation that has accurately kept to the text ?

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@KeldorDAntrell You use way too many words to say "I'm a pretentious jerk looking for a fight on the internet."

[@MirandaMilner]

Cinema sins has a specific style. They throw jokes in that have nothing to do with the movie, and it’s supposed to be fun to watch. I enjoy it. If you can’t distinguish between what is one of their valid criticisms and what is joke, then it’s not for you, and that’s ok. But if you get it, and can follow their humor, it’s really funny. I love cinema sins, and I think their satire is well done.

[@erickpoorbaugh6728]

If their fake sins were limited to obvious jokes, you’d have a point. But often they do things like deliberately editing their clips to leave out information that contradicts their “sins” (e.g., a character says something incorrect and they sin the movie for being “wrong,” but they ended the clip two seconds before another character corrects the first character’s error) and there’s no way to know they did it unless you’ve seen the movie and remember it very well. That’s not a joke-that’s a lie.

[@MirandaMilner]

@@erickpoorbaugh6728 it’s certainly possible for Cinema Sins to misunderstand some dialogue. It’s not necessarily lying on purpose. But I’d also like to point out the fact that Cinema Sins uses suggestions for sins from his subscribers. I’m not sure how many he comes up with himself. And even still, the overall videos are far from serious in tone. Even when there are some actual problems pointed out. He even gives “ratings” at the end of his videos that are complete nonsense just for the sake of it. He’s just having fun with it, so I don’t personally expect very much reviewing of his “sins” to be sure they’re accurate. I find it just as entertaining regardless of mistakes.