The Fellowship of the Ring is STILL PERFECT all these years later

[@wahlmd12]

Watching this while sitting in my garage building the new Barud-Dur Lego set. It's a perfect Friday night.

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Oh man. Sounds like a great start to the weekend! That set looks so cool

[@bc_scrubs]

Great episode Lads!! Loved it❤ Thanks for answering my question and nailing the answer as well👌

[@awaitinggame]

You guys do a great job of breaking down films, and I’m really enjoying this. Love the intro lol, perfect transition to a non-Star Wars related topic. LOTR is my favorite trilogy of all time, even more than Star Wars. Really great podcast 👍🏻 Side note, something I enjoy about your show that makes it stand out is how you bring in ties to faith, like how Gandalf is a Christ-like figure. Even down to the Balrog only striking Gandalf’s heel. Great stuff 🙌🏻

[@ellenkirby8366]

This conversation is so insightful. Love it.

[@ellenkirby8366]

Gandalfs convo with Frodo in the Mine always makes me cry. Along with all the other parts you mentioned. But Iv noticed the older I get the more I cry. Things hit different with life experience

[@JohnEsplana-k5t]

You guys are so fun to watch. From one fan to another, thank you for this. Just subscribed.

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Thanks so much! We're glad you're here!

[@leagueextraordinarysixthers]

Great Show. Look forward to discussion of Two Towers. Thank you answering my question.

[@AbbySkye-07734]

OMG that intro was incredible!! 👏👏👏 Y'all had me rolling laughing 😂😂😂 quality content 👍

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Thank you! We’re always up to some sort of shenanigans

[@michaelcramer_98]

49:36 when I was LOTR for the very first time and the moment I saw Legolas he became my favorite character. I named my Skyrim Character after him

[@TheGamerShelter]

I learned the other day a little bit about how the "magic" in LotR works and I wanted to mention it for anyone who doesn't know because it made me truly love something that was always meh to me. I am no expert btw heh Gandalfs "magic" isn't casting spells it's changing reality with his words. He can only change things within his power and can be overridden by those more powerful. But in the Balrog scene when he says, "You can not pass." in the book...it's not a threat. It's Gandalf saying, "The laws of the universe will not allow you to pass from now on." Same thing with when he says, "Your staff is broken." He's not like casting a spell. He is stating a fact and the universe breaks Sarumans staff to make it a true statement. It is an incredible idea of magic to me :)

[@michaelcramer_98]

2:06 great gollum impression

[@BillROOKLYN]

Howard Shore’s score of this film and the others in the series? ::chef’s kiss::.

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

One of, if not THE, greatest film score ever put to screen.

[@starwarssith66]

🔥🔥🔥 introoooo

[@bretkester8316]

Listened the most of the episode on a long car ride. Very hard to not comment the whole time. To me, this is the greatest movie and the best adaptation from an original source (and in this case, one of the most beloved books of all time). Just as a point, half of the movie was my favorite when I was younger (the action). Now as an adult, the other half is my favorite (Bilbo’s party, the earlier parts of the movie, Boromir’s sacrifice). Agree about the Rings of Power. There was a manuscript started of Aragorn’s son as a king dealing with a cult of Sauron. That would have been a better idea with a pretty open slate to work with. I am realizing that whatever you guys talk about, it is going to be something that I already completely enjoy. And that intro: 🔥🔥🔥

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Appreciate you, Bret! Glad you’re enjoying the LOTR content!

[@samurai42069]

I mean I love the content and gandalf I mean, the ring is also a hope/morale booster too which is an extra bonus why everyone finds him uplifting. I mean the whole lore is awesome all together!

[@michaelcramer_98]

1:17 you were the piloting the Falcon 😂😂

[@ellenkirby8366]

🤯the Bilbo dialogue.

[@michaelcramer_98]

1:08:23 Gandalf would make a great Philosophy teacher

[@mattcarvalho4280]

You carry the fate of us all little one

[@michaelcramer_98]

You were right Seth you can hear the ring talk 1:08:23

[@THEBROTHERSNORWICH]

The intro was great 😂

[@VIBEROCKS96]

My birth name is Thorin 🌴 🛡️

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Whoa! Now way that’s so cool!

[@michaelcramer_98]

Which one did you watch Theaterical or Extended Edition?

[@michaelcramer_98]

6:11 speaking of that question: does Peter Jackson have rights to the Lord of the rings or does Tolkien family? Because when ring of power came out they didn’t get any rights to it?

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

The Tolkien estate retains all rights

[@michaelcramer_98]

@@BeyondTheDuneSeaalright thank so much

[@michaelcramer_98]

15:50 did you ever play Shadow and war of Mordor Games Konnor?

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

I have tried to play Shadow of Mordor twice. Once when it first came out, and again within the past couple years. I just cannot get into it, unfortunately.

[@michaelcramer_98]

Do you think Tolkien He created Sauron in the image of the Axis powers and Gollum in the image of PTSD?

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

I think Tolkien was moreso influenced by his faith when constructing his story/characters than the war. I think his time in WWI influenced more in his themes.

[@frankrenaud6065]

Looking forward to hearing yall's thoughts on the upcoming season of Rings of Power.

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

We may throw an opinion or two in if it comes up in the fan questions, but we're gonna sit out on ROP. I'll say the trailers for S2 look intriguing

[@alasdairboswell4654]

I personally think the only scene that hasn’t aged well visually, is the falling bridges in Moria scene where they all jump from column to column. Other than that, beautiful film that’s effects still impress to this day!

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

Man that's so interesting. When rewatching to prep for our talk I made special note of that scene because I thought it looked so good! I think the one thing that looks goofy is when Elrond's head briefly pops into Frodo's dream sequence when he's fading away on his way to Rivendell haha

[@alasdairboswell4654]

@@BeyondTheDuneSea YES 🤣 oh my gosh it looks like something from a music video. Can you imagine Elrond in a band??

[@alasdairboswell4654]

Personally as someone who likes and watches Rings of Power, yes they do add a lot of stuff and characters to fill the gaps, but none of it feels disrespectful or like it tarnishes Tolkien’s books.

[@NekoBones]

None of it feels disrespectful or tarnishes Tolkien’s books? You have to be acting facetious here, the entire show is openly a bastardization of Tolkien's work, it's all fan fiction, built on the fact they don't even have the rights to most of Tolkien's material work. The show runners and cast are openly disavowing Tolkien, portraying him as some sort of bigoted old racist anti gay blah blah insert bad man bad..... because what? he didn't write about every characters sexuality or explicitly has to emphasize race/colour? and that's why their new version is better because they're "FIXING" Tolkien's ideals, views and what have you? Not everything has to be about sex in some shape or form, be it gender related or sexual preference, Tolkien didn't have it in his books because he was simply a devout Catholic, that's not ill will/intent, that's simply his belief system in part at play. I'm neither religious or a prude, the greatest person I ever knew was my grandmother who like Tolkien (similar age/generation) was a devout Catholic and even though I'm not religious, I still respect her devotion and beliefs and know it's not all bigotry etc that's been thrown about, far from it. I sexualise and consume plenty of sexualised stuff, welcome to the 21st century, but it's also in appropriate stuff that had those themes in some shape of form to begin with and even then it can be hit or miss. Trust me like most human's sex and boobies are some of the best things in life but not in already established works that never had it to begin with, just like as Star Wars as an example of putting a lot of sex and gender themes in their newest stuff when it was never in it to begin with and shouldn't be. I don't watch Star Wars for themes of sex, same for Tolkien's work. The Witcher books and games are examples of work that have very strong sexual and gender themes and better for it if that's what your looking for. As for the whole race thing, Tolkien rarely mentions skin colour so blatantly calling him racist is baffling. Tolkien was a Philologist who used old ENGLISH literature, EUROPEAN mythology as well as his own life experiences living in the ENGLISH rural countryside and World War one as influences and foundations for his work, so to act as if he's racist when until more recent years, ENGLAND and ENGLISH history was... shocker extremely dominantly white. Writing what you know is not racist, never mind the fact that skin colour wasn't brought up in his work. At this point racist is a meaningless term thrown about to try and win an argument when they have nothing to actually input. So I personally want to believe that you saying "none of it feels disrespectful or like it tarnishes Tolkien’s books" is in complete jest? As both the show itself and cast/crew/showrunners, does exactly what you say it doesn't.......

[@di3486]

@@NekoBonesoh believe me, Tolkien would deeply despise that show. If even Christopher Tolkien had his issues with the Jackson movies, imagine what he would say with RoP

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

I would respectfully disagree. From everything I've seen from the show, the writers greatly misunderstand Tolkien at best. The misuse of characters is only the tip of the iceberg. I think the most charitable thing I could say about the show is that they are mindless, eye candy. Which... if I'm saying that about something supposedly based on the works of Tolkien, is an affront all its own.

[@alasdairboswell4654]

@@NekoBones dude, get a life. I’m not reading all that. If you’re bothered by seeing different ethnicities in a fantasy show, you’ve lost the plot. They don’t even have sex in Rings of Power. You’re not worth engaging with I’m sorry. Toxic much? Touch some grass friend. Peace.

[@alasdairboswell4654]

@@BeyondTheDuneSea that’s fair I didn’t really care for Galadriel but yeah, I just disagree with ya on this. I haven’t read anything outside of The Hobbit or LOTR so maybe I’d feel differently. I just didn’t see anything in the show that made me feel that way. Like if they had a bunch of swearing or maybe sex scenes or something wild like that, I’d have taken issue with it big time but man, I dunno. Nothing really bugged me too much besides Galadriel acting out of character. I just think the show is entertaining as its own thing I suppose.

[@jachyra9]

While I enjoy the films as cinema, and they are certainly deserving of merit in that regard, Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the WORST LITERARY ADAPTATIONS IN CINEMA. And a lot of the horrible choices made in regards to adaptation often lower the quality of the story as cinema: The dispensing of Tolkien’s morality. The uncanonical failures of nerve. The disregard for proper tone. The elasticity of pacing. The flattening of narrative. The interminable battle scenes. The complete destruction of characterization. The degradation of Tolkien’s prose, reducing beautiful sentiment to corny greeting card mush. The relentless trivialization of the story. And perhaps most egregiously, the facile appreciation of the book thinly veiling a profound and contemptible lack of comprehension of its themes. This is in addition to the enthusiastic copying of an alarming amount of shots, scenes, and entire sequences from Ralph Bakshi’s animated adaptation from 1978. While it may be true that Jackson’s interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is far greater qualitatively that his interpretation of The Hobbit, well... that isn’t really saying much.

[@BeyondTheDuneSea]

I appreciate your thoughtful comment. I think Jackson’s adaptation of Fellowship is the most faithful. It would be impossible to adapt the Lord of the Rings books into a 1:1 adaptation without some changes to pace, structure, and character. In Fellowship, those changes serve the story and pace in a way that is true to the spirit of the book, at least in my opinion. The biggest change that I’m not too keen on is Aragorn’s reluctance to become king. Seems an unnecessary change for the adaptation. Now, getting into Two Towers, I have more problems with the changes made here from a adaptation standpoint. Lots of structural and character changes were made for the sake of focus on Helm’s Deep and other action beats. Jackson made many bold choices in these films, and I feel this is where it could’ve used more bold action. Allow the climax to focus on the quiet character moments the books are known for, rather than the large (rather impressive) action set piece. In any case, I appreciate that this debate has raged for over 20 years and will keep raging for many more. What I appreciate the most of Jackson is his insistence on keeping Tolkien’s voice at the center of these films. He did his best to bring an adaptation of these timeless stories to the screen, and he did a brilliant job at that. Most people I know that start with these films, are then hungry for more and want to read the books. People who would not have read them otherwise. That’s a win for Jackson, and a win for Tolkien.

[@jachyra9]

@@BeyondTheDuneSea - "I appreciate your thoughtful comment." You're welcome. "I think Jackson’s adaptation of Fellowship is the most faithful." It's not. As I pointed out. "It would be impossible to adapt the Lord of the Rings books into a 1:1 adaptation without some changes to pace, structure, and character." This is irrelevant. That might be true if I or anyone else expect any literary adaptation to be that. But since no one does, you are just arguing an assumption out of context. An adaptation's fidelity to its source is measured by its faithfulness to the author's intentions, what he or she conveyed through the text. Clueless, Amy Heckerling's adaptation of Emma, is a great example of a faithful adaptation, despite the liberties it takes with character and setting. "In Fellowship, those changes serve the story and pace in a way that is true to the spirit of the book, at least in my opinion." Your opinion isn't correct. Perhaps, like Jackson, you failed to understand the book. The Lord of the Rings isn't about evil, fleeing from evil or battling evil. Tolkien never lingers on and fetishizes evil, suffering or violence. Jackson loves these things, being as fond of horror movies as he is. And how Jackson mishandled the characters and themes make me question whether he actually read the boom at all. "What I appreciate the most of Jackson is his insistence on keeping Tolkien’s voice at the center of these films." But Jackson didn't keep Tolkien's voice, because he didn't understand Tolkien's voice. How do you believe Jackson kept Tolkien's voice? "He did his best to bring an adaptation of these timeless stories to the screen, and he did a brilliant job at that." He did neither. "Most people I know that start with these films, are then hungry for more and want to read the books. People who would not have read them otherwise. That’s a win for Jackson, and a win for Tolkien." More sophistry. Do Jackson apologists actually believe this? The Lord of the Rings has been read by more than 150,000,000 people and translated into forty languages. Jackson's films had very little to do with that.

[@rooseveltrdPR]

He wasn't "copying" Bakshi's film, it's called homage. There are several shots in PJ's films that pay homage to many different popular art pieces of the LOTR from many different artists. Also, there will NEVER be a truly faithful film adaptation of ANY book. They are entirely different mediums, that is the point of adaptation. If PJ had used the books as screen play and done a "perfect" adaptation, you'd end up with a 15 hour film that was the most boring piece of crap you'd've ever seen. There is argument to be made that he added conflict where it did not exist in the books (i.e. Aragorn's hesitation to become king. etc.) but that allows for character arch that was nearly absent in the books. Not gonna lie, Aragorn is kinda boring in the books. His position and motivation hardly changes AT ALL, across 3 damn books. There is also argument to be made that he cut too much out. Even from the Extended editions, (which in my opinion are superior) the 13 years between the party and leaving the Shire, the Barrow, Tom Bombadil, etc. etc. Again I think this is a benefit for pacing and sense of urgency. I would not impress upon the audience any sort of risk or urgency if the Hobbits just stopped heading to Bree to hangout with a weird stoner dude in the woods that wasn't affected at all by the ring. With all of the time and money that was spent making these films, it's had to actually be watchable to a regular mainstream audience or else they would have bankrupted the studios. Last note I will make the claim the that the Harry Potter films are in fact even worse book to film adaptations than LOTR. But that's just my take.

[@jachyra9]

@@rooseveltrdPR - "He wasn't "copying" Bakshi's film, it's called homage." No. It's called copying. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great example of homage by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg to the adventure serials of the thirties and forties. They created an entire original story from scratch without once explicitly copying someone else's work. "There are several shots in PJ's films that pay homage to many different popular art pieces of the LOTR from many different artists." Yes. But he stilled copied Bakshi. "Also, there will NEVER be a truly faithful film adaptation of ANY book." There are numerous literary adaptations that are truly faithful to their sources. So you can tell your caps lock key to calm down and take the rest of the day off. "They are entirely different mediums, that is the point of adaptation." You don't understand the point of adaptation. Adapting a creator's work isn't implicitly a license to do whatever you want with it. "If PJ had used the books as screen play and done a "perfect" adaptation, you'd end up with a 15 hour film that was the most boring piece of crap you'd've ever seen." Yet another checklisted item on the Jackson Apologist itinerary. Your logic is mighty specious: first, you'd have to establish what you believe constitutes a perfect adaptation( there's no need for scare quotes around that word: you aren't quoting me, so placing quotations around a word when you're not quoting someone makes you look stupid ). Then you'd have to establish how said perfect adaptation would beyond any shadow of a doubt end up being fifteen hours long and the most boring piece of crap I've ever seen. The irony that apparently escapes you is, as I've already pointed out, a faithful adaptation isn't about filming each page of the book. "There is argument to be made that he added conflict where it did not exist in the books (i.e. Aragorn's hesitation to become king. etc.)" There is no argument to be made. Jackson did add conflict where it did not exist in the book( singular ). "but that allows for character arch that was nearly absent in the books." Aragorn doesn't have a character arc because, like all characters, he doesn't need one. Aragorn has a character trajectory, which is much better for his character and for the story itself. "Not gonna lie, Aragorn is kinda boring in the books." In your estimation. But I'll bite: I'd rather have what you consider to be a boring character than Jackson's Aragorn who is a coward and a thug with the charisma of lawn furniture. "His position and motivation hardly changes AT ALL, across 3 damn books." That's because it doesn't need to. "There is also argument to be made that he cut too much out." Once again... "Even from the Extended editions, (which in my opinion are superior) the 13 years between the party and leaving the Shire, the Barrow, Tom Bombadil, etc. etc. Again I think this is a benefit for pacing and sense of urgency." It's not. "I would not impress upon the audience any sort of risk or urgency if the Hobbits just stopped heading to Bree to hangout with a weird stoner dude in the woods that wasn't affected at all by the ring." Except you obviously failed to grasp that there was great risk and urgency. Tom Bombadil saved the hobbits from danger. Twice. And if you genuinely didn't understand why their interaction with Tom was important to the story and plot, then, like Peter Jackson, you didn't understand The Lord of the Rings at all. "With all of the time and money that was spent making these films, it's had to actually be watchable to a regular mainstream audience or else they would have bankrupted the studios." Regular mainstream audience? Is there another kind of audience? No, there isn't. The Lord of the Rings has been read by over 150,000,000 people and translated into forty languages. What part of that doesn't scream "Regular mainstream humans love this story just the way it is" to you? So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about in regards to how studios make money. "Last note I will make the claim the that the Harry Potter films are in fact even worse book to film adaptations than LOTR. But that's just my take." Even if that's true, why do you believe this is relevant? Because it's not. At all.