Unnecessary Changes to Fellowship of the Ring that Created Major Plot Holes

[@jessicascoullar3737]

The part I had the most problem with is they removed most of the scenes where Frodo shows his courage. He no longer fights back on Weathertop, Arwen does all the work in getting to Rivendell with Frodo having no more agency than a doll instead of Frodo riding the horse himself and defying the riders at the Ford and it continues through the other movies. They remove all the scenes of Frodo’s agency and give them to other characters (with the exception of fate stepping in at the end and making Gollum trip, which completely ruined that scene as well as it made Frodo Gollum’s murderer). I liked Frodo in the books. I find movie Frodo passive, whiny and irritating. He is more luggage for the other character to move than a person in his own right. They focus far too much on his weakness and addiction to the ring and forget to balance it with his determination, wisdom and courage.

[@alanpennie8013]

You're not wrong. I think book Frodo is already pretty irritating but his film counterpart is worse.

[@jessicascoullar3737]

@@alanpennie8013 yeah he never was my favourite character, even in the book, but the film portrays him terribly. I was ten when I first read it and Pipin was my favourite though he is a little annoying now I am older, but when I was ten he was the character I related to the most.

[@draug7966]

Yeah that's smth that annoys me too about the movies. Movie-Frodo seems overly helpless and kinda whimpy and you don't get that impression in the books where he's quite a bit wiser and tougher.

[@jasonantes9500]

I agree, I loathed Frodo in the movies. Just came off as a whiney baby and mostly useless.

[@ZaddyGohan]

I feel like in general they made the hobbits way more incompetent in the movies than they were in the books

[@SquierStrat72]

The bit of voiceover dialogue from Saruman about Gandalf fearing to go through Moria because he knew what the Dwarves uncovered makes it a bit more confusing still. By the movie standards, he didn't just suspect, but actively KNEW there was a balrog and a high possibility Balin and company were toast. And STILL he says nothing about Gimli's expectations...............

[@ZaddyGohan]

Yes, it doesn’t make sense because in the book he didn’t know about the balrog at all, all he knew was that there was “Durin’s Bane” but he didn’t know it was a Balrog. Hell, in the book, Legolas is the one who discovers that it’s a Balrog going after them

[@erickpoorbaugh6728]

I think the biggest plot change in the movies that created a problem is a subtler one: They implied that Gwaihir flew Gandalf all the way from Isengard to Rivendell. In the book, Gwaihir only took Gandalf to Rohan, and Gandalf rode Shadowfax back north. What's more, Gwaihir specifically told Gandalf that he couldn't carry him very far. If the movies had followed the book in this respect, we wouldn't have all of these people saying the Fellowship should have flown the eagles to Mordor since Gwaihir's statement that he couldn't carry someone very far would provide an obvious reason why that isn't possible. For that matter, the fact that the film let Gandalf use moths to summon the eagles (whereas in the book, Gwaihir went to Isengard as a messenger from Radagast) solves the problem of how they would have contacted the eagles in the first place. Yes, there are other problems with the eagles theory, so these changes don't really create a plot hole, but they do make it easier for people to *think* there's a major plot hole.

[@MountainFisher]

My son read the books and The Two Towers pissed him off as it did me. I have only watched the movie once, l understand that they have time constraints, but to add a bunch of nonsense that wasn't in the books was bogus. At least FOTR didn't piss me off.

[@phoule76]

haha This annoys me about all movies: when we see two or more characters talking, it's as though they have had zero communication while off camera. As you pointed out, wouldn't have Gandalf and Gimli discussed Moria at some point during their trek up to this point? Perhaps it's because they were always clearly going to take the mountain pass, and Saruman's meddling was completely unexpected.

[@poeterritory]

Glad someone finally said what had been bugging me ever since I saw that movie. It's always been the perversion of the characters that annoyed me. Especially how they treated Elrond and his blaming humans... and he was half human himself. Guess I love the books too much to enjoy the movies for what they are worth.

[@andrewwilliams2353]

Same here Poe. I can understand the difficulty they had in filing the council of Elrond but that was no excuse in perverting the character so badly. Also, the casting was a disaster to my mind. Weaving looked like a superannuated drag queen with receding hair - not the ancient but ageless dark haied lordly figure of the book

[@poeterritory]

@@andrewwilliams2353 Thanks. I always felt many were miscast, with Elrond being at the top of the list.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

What makes it even weirder is that Eldrond should know he would not have done much better in Isildur's place.

[@KeldorDAntrell]

It seems from this that you're sure Gandalf knew there was a balrog in Moria. You would know better than me if he'd got wind of 'Durin's Bane' but as I remember it, Gimli wanted to go through Moria to find out what had happened to Durin and his followers' attempts to retake Moria. Was the nature of Durin's Bane really known to Gandalf? Remember he said in the book, when he discovered its presence: "Now I understand" (which refers to why the orcs nearby, whom he had overheard, were talking of fire). Then Gandalf said, "What an evil fortune; and I am already weary." That suggests to be that he's saying, 'This is terrible luck!' - not something you'd say if you already knew it was there. You'd be more likely to say 'what terrible luck it was *not to have avoided it*'. Moreover, if he really did know that there was a balrog in there, would he have risked encountering it? He knows how powerful they are, that only someone like him (one of the Maia) or a mighty elf lord such as Elrond or Glorfindel could hope to defeat a balrog. Incidentally, do you think Aragorn was capable of defeating a balrog? My understanding of Tolkien lore is that to be a great warrior in Middle Earth is a matter not of supernatural powers or strength but the greatest experience in battle, the great expertise and mental fortitude that comes from years of practice and from many victories such that Aragorn was at least of the ilk to become capable of slaying a balrog as Islidur no doubt was. Addendum: I think it's great that you appreciate that having the eye of a critic is not as easy a thing as most seem to think. I've spent a lot of years studying film e.g. A Level Film Studies, and it's a genuine field of expertise yet most people don't get this, and generally deride film critics. You, having closely considered these films in particular, have developed a sense of the subtlety than can exist in what is communicated by film technique, possibly because you're so aware of Tolkien's books that even the tiniest deviations stand out. Addendum: I've just discovered that at the Council of Elrond Gloin mentioned that in Moria they (his people) "delved too deep and woke the nameless fear" and that this drove out Durin and all of his folk so maybe Gandalf *did* know that there was a balrog there. He certainly knew there was a great and powerful being of evil nature there and given his own nature as a Maia (is that the singular form of the word?) it follows that he would have a good idea of what this being might be even if he never learned it explicitly. Moreover, it's safe to assume that Gandalf did whatever research he could into the nature of this creature e.g. reading whatever accounts there were. So I stand corrected on this point. In this light, when Gandalf said, "Now I understand" he *did* already know that it could be a balrog but at the same time could think of other things that would explain why the orcs were chattering about fire - and was hoping it was something else; and his words, "What an evil fortune" could mean "...that we've encountered it".

[@rmsgrey]

The Balrog is a similar order of being to the Wizards or to Sauron - a Maiar bound to a physical form. Some of the Elves (including Elrond) and many of the Dunedain have some Maiar in their distant ancestry, so it's not wholly impossible that Aragorn could have defeated one, but Gandalf had, by far, the best chance of any of the Fellowship against one, and Aragorn was the only other who might just have the potential. Strider had no chance.

[@RicoThingol]

I’ve been thinking about this recently, why did Gandalf go to Moria if he knew that the dwarves awoke something in there? I wonder if he thought that it was a Nameless horror like the watcher in the water from the deep places in Moria, instead of a Balrog

[@rmsgrey]

I remember that coming out of the cinema after Fellowship, my friends and I discussed and agreed that this was based on a different text than the Red Book of Westmarch that Tolkien's version was based upon, and was probably written by a Gondorian sometime in the Fourth Age, seeking to curry favour with the then-Monarch by exalting their ancestor, Aragorn, the only good Man in the movie, and downplaying the roles of everyone else as far as possible without being too obvious. Except Frodo, the Ringbearer. So Gandalf, who might have otherwise stolen Aragorn's thunder as leader of the Fellowship is a bit vague and vaguely incompetent, letting Frodo make decisions and solve riddles for him. Then by the time the Two Towers came out, I'd re-read the books, and decided that it was just a flawed adaptation.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

Good analysis. One thing that was changed that really struck me was how the hobbit get their swords. And I guess you're saving this for the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. In the movie, Aragorn just happens to be carrying four short swords for the hobbits (despite not knowing there'll be four of them). In the book, of course, they get their swords from the Barrow, and this becomes significant when Merry strikes the Witch-King, because the swords were wrought to be the Witch-King's bane. I get that Jackson wanted to skip over the Old Forest, and Bombadil. But that creates a problem because it means they also have to miss out the Barrow-Downs. An additional point here is : how did the hobbits leave the Shire without encountering the Nazgûl? The road was being watched, so how did the hobbits get to Bree without being spotted? In the book, they went through the Old Forest (which led to the encounters with Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and thence the Barrow-Wight). In the movie, they magically appear to be transported from the bank of the Brandywine at Bucklebury to Bree with no travel in between. It's as if Jackson has erased the whole of Buckland, set the Brandywine as the border of the Shire, and placed Bree within a short walk of the ferry.

[@brettevill9055]

It has occurred to me that if you had to cut the barrow for running time (though I'd rather have cut the Party) it would beeasy and quick to show Aragorn arming the hobbits from a Rangers' weapons cache in the wilderness. It would have added to Aragorn's mystique, too.

[@TheKingofkrypton]

I think that Galadriel's line about none of Gandalf's acts being needless in life is a colorful way of her saying that he was wise and didn't waste time or energy on needless or even foolish actions. This would be in response to Legolas's criticism of Gandalf's being in favor of entering Moria, as though Legolas were saying that favoring Moria over the pass was foolish. I'm a super casual fan, though, so I'm well aware that my impression could be flawed due to a great dearth of information. I like you channel, by the way, and subbed to catch up on your stuff so far.

[@FelixIakhos]

The dwarves in Moria have clearly been dead for a long time. There's cobwebs all over them and they've even been mummified, which is interesting since there's no sunlight shining on them. They can't have been eaten because they're still in full armor.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Fair point.

[@brettevill9055]

@@TolkienLorePodcast For mummification you need dry air or dessicating conditions, not sunshine. Bodies often mummify then they are walled up in cavities in buildings, or buried in dry sand. And it need not take all that long. The Japanese Buddhist practice of "self-mummification", for example, routinely allows the corpse to be taken from its tomb and lacquered after three years.

[@Arcessitor]

@@brettevill9055That practice is a complete myth. It never happened. They did mummify their elders but it was not part of some self-inflicted ritual, it was to be able to worship said elders.

[@sbravo3761]

Great video man. I may not be the person to say it but I think that if you added pictures4 or clips from the movie to understand exactly what you are talking about, cause I'm a big big fan of lotr, but I'm not really a hardcore fan, so when you start talking about locations or people that were not heavily mentioned in the movies or are easy to remember, I start to get lost. So adding a picture of a map or of the person could really help in that regard. Anyways great video again.

[@oysterman8495]

Great idea!

[@robhogg68]

One which really rankles me is them removing Merry and Pippin's conspiracy with Sam, by which they join the expedition from the Shire. The absence of this doesn't really create a plot hole, but the scene where Frodo and Sam run into Merry and Pippin (sons of two of the wealthiest families in the Shire) scrumping cabbages and carrots in a field is silly, and undermines their characters.

[@MrRys]

and then the fact, that at one point they are just casually stealling carrots and a second later they join Frodo on a long journey they don't know nothing about one would expect them to at least have some conversation about it in the Bree

[@brettevill9055]

@@MrRys Yeah. And Jackson changed Merry and Pippin from young aristocrats who were going off on an adventure to (for all we can tell) feckless gangrels. It's as strange as changing Aragorn from the lost heir intent on claiming the throne into when he can into a deserter who is shirking responsibilities that Boromir recognises that he has.

[@GreatOldOne9866]

So is that all this channel is? A hate group? Pi$s off and get it right.

[@MrEffectfilms]

I actually love the choice to make Aragorn reluctant to be king. He knows his lineage has screwed up immensely and he's afraid that same nature could be in him and doesn't want to take that risk. The irony of course being that he's far more worthy of being king than anyone else in the movies. 10:54 In the context of the movie Galdreal is likely refering to Gandalfs choice to stand against the Balrog and fight it, he could have run with the others but he chose to fight.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

I think if Gandalf had not fought the Balrog would have ran down the fellowship and killed them without Gandalf stopping it on the bridge away from the others.

[@MrEffectfilms]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Possibly yeah but Gandalf didn't have to fight it. His magic would have been enough to protect himself from it even if it killed the others.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@MrEffectfilms Yeah but it is then a failure of the quest and the Balrog could have got the ring.

[@alanpennie8013]

I agree. Book Aragorn is a painfully underwritten character and they did well to give him an arc of personal growth. It also answers the question why he did not claim the kingship earlier, which might have saved Denethor from his descent into insanity.

[@chrisroberts6477]

Looking forward to your Two Towers one man! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@DAK4Blizzard]

As I understand, the dwarves in Moria were overrun and killed some 9 years prior to the fellowship entering. Balin was killed by orcs in 2994 in Dimrill Dale. He was promptly buried in a tomb in the center of the Chamber of Mazarbul. In the book, the current events take place in 3019, or 25 years later. But in the film, because Gandalf spends less than a year (rather than 17 years) searching for Gollum and info on the Ring, the events take place in 3003. (By my estimate, Gandalf spends about 9 months away from the Shire, from Bilbo's birthday in September thru what Saruman references as midsummer when referencing the Nazguls' pursuit of the Ring.)

[@johnalucard7860]

Glorfindel ???? Too much arwen. No old forest.no willow man.no bombadil.

[@JamesMC04]

Far too much Arwen.

[@mohsaal]

I can’t wait to see your thoughts and review when the Amazon middle earth series begins each episode 👍 your friend from the Middle East and huge Tolkien fan

[@Xhalonick]

Just finished all 6 movies, loving your channel man. Great points.

[@laura-bianca3130]

I am getting seriously addicted to this channel. 🤔

[@ZaddyGohan]

About the gifts-didn’t Aragorn originally get Evenstar from Galadriel? Also, the most gut-wrenching change was Sam getting rope instead of his magic dirt for his garden 🤬

[@neinjunge5560]

could you please tell me what you are saying there in the beginning of the video, your greeting?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

“Mae govannen,” which is basically “well met.”

[@erickpoorbaugh6728]

I'd add that another reason why Elrond demanded that Aragorn become king before he could marry Arwen was because if Arwen married Aragorn, she'd no longer be able to travel into the West with the elves. The circumstances that would allow Aragorn to become king are ones that would likely make Middle Earth a lot more stable, ensuring that Arwen is able to live out her life there and doesn't need the option of fleeing into the West. This would be especially important to Elrond given what happened to his own wife.

[@klutttmuttsprutt6087]

Can't help but being annoyed again by something I think is pretty deciding later in the story. Instead of finding swords in the Barrow-downs, remnants of the old north kingdom, they are just handed out with a generic comment about keeping the swords close at hand. The sword that stabs the witch king of Angmar from behind is a necessary part of his downfall in the book. "No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will." In the movie, apparently just any sword can hurt him bad enough to be killed, and that goes against the narrative.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Annoying, yes, but not a plot hole lol.

[@JafuetTheSame]

They legendary beings. They don't act like we do...

[@MrBrianGenda]

Just found your channel. Great stuff! Keep it up.

[@allofthelightsbykanyewest]

bro he needed you as technical advisor 🍎

[@donaldgrove2249]

I am impressed with how sensitive you are to these differences. I am more familiar with the novels, and never really cared about the films. But I am struck by one thing you talk about. In the novel, no one knows that Durin's Bane is a balrog. Is it true as you suggest that in the film Gandalf knows there is a balrog there? I didn't pick that up. If that is the case, yes, it's a silly change, because it doesn't do anything to move the action.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

It’s not stated explicitly but Saruman’s monologue “You know what they awoke in the darkness” and the fact that Gandalf identifies it as a Balrog before it’s visible certainly imply it.

[@stormy7745]

While I see where you are coming from, I understand why Jackson made those changes. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I can see why from a technical standpoint. It's the difference between storytelling for a movie and storytelling for a book. For those familiar with the novels and/or the legendarium, they don't necessarily make sense and can be a negative. But for people who are only vaguely aware of the general gist of LotR (if at all), those plot changes are sources of conflict/tension that are intended to keep the viewer interested and invested. Change #1, re Aragorn's reluctance to become king: it creates intrigue around the identity and nature of who his character is and sets up a source of tension to be resolved over the course of his character arc in the films. It's meant to keep the audience invested in Aragorn's journey and role in the story even after the Fellowship has split and he, Legolas, and Gimli go off in hunt of Merry and Pippin. Change #2, Gandalf wanting to go through the north via Caradhras vs Boromir wanting to go through the Gap of Rohan much further south vs Gimli wanting to go through Moria, and leaving the decision to Frodo: I'd wager this was done partially for drama/tension and to give the Fellowship some time to engage. Because it is a film, there isn't time to show the more dudgery bits of the journey. Consequently, the audience misses out on a lot of bonding time/discussions/arguments the fellowship would have gone through, including ones over the best route to take to reach Mordor. They needed to show group struggling and working together and making decisions while having a source of tension to keep the audience invested. If the wise old wizard character and guide of the group seems to make all the calls, it's "less interesting" from a filmmaking standpoint. By having the wise old wizard adament about not going that way but unwilling to divulge why while having a couple of other members of the party requesting a different way and one adamently believing that they know a far better way, and then leaving that decision to the one who is at the heart of the quest it does several things: 1) It creates tension and suspense, because 'oh no- why is the powerful, old wizard scared? what's in those mines that's so terrible that he'd rather not say and endure the harshness of the mountain?' 2) It allows us time with the characters and see what their dynamic is, especially under tension, because due to time constraints we don't have the chance to see how they faced smaller obstacles. 3) It's reaffirming Frodo's position as the main protagonist. Frodo is the ring-bearer, the heart of the quest. It refocuses and reminds the audience that he is the main character, not Gandalf. Gandalf is there as a supporting character Change #3, Gimli being blissfully unaware of the fate of Moria: Again, it's partially as a stark contrast to Gandalf's reluctance. But it was also to streamline and simplify the story. When you get down to it, there's just so much lore even just in the Lord of the Rings books that you can't include it all in a screen adaptation unless *maybe* it's for a TV series, but even then. (I mean, *technically* there was too much content for the books themselves and notes had to be added into the appendices to explain certain things). With everything that Jackson cut, Fellowship is still almost a 3 hour movie. It would have taken too much time to explain what Gimli and Gloin were doing in Rivendell. To have just a throwaway line from either Gimli or Gloin would have either been missed by the casual viewer or, if caught, might confuse and distract them from the main plot. Jackson would have either have had to spend several minutes at leasy doing exposition at the Council to explain why the dwarves were there and the risks of Moria OR just eschew it entirely and have it be part of Gimli's journey. It also helps to make Gimli's shock and grief at the discovery of the fate that befell his kin more poignant to an audience that may not be aware of the finer lore points And regarding Galadriel's words regarding Gandalf's decisions, you can take it to mean that he had his reasons for letting Frodo decide. Even if the choice to go through Moria in the films was made by Frodo, it was Gandalf's choice to let Frodo make that decision. Takes a smidgeon of suspension of disbelief, especially if you know the books, but ye.

[@obscure-cultist1709]

I remember people saying that the reason why they changed Aragorn's motivation in the films is because in the book it contradicted one of the central messages of the story; that the allure and pursuit of power can cause absolute destruction. In the books Aragorn desires to become king because as you mentioned, its his birthright and is a necessary step to marry Arewyn. Some people apparently interpreted that as a "pursuit of power" and wondered why the story wasn't criticizing him like it did Sauron or anyone who was tempted by the One Ring. Personally, I don't really buy that as a justification because in the RotK book, Aragorn doesn't really press the point of becoming king when he comes to Gondor. In fact IIRC, he only becomes king when the citizens of Minas Tirith ask him to. Then again its been a while since I last read the novel (I've should really read it again) so I might be remembering things wrong. I'm curious to know your thoughts on the matter.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

You’re pretty much dead on, other than some hypertechnical nuance not worth getting hung up on. :P

[@dupplinmuir113]

I thought Galadriel gave Boromir a belt?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

In the novel, yes. I was referring to the fact that in the movie she doesn’t give him anything. Should have been a little clearer there. Lol

[@alanpennie8013]

@@TolkienLorePodcast As soon as she saw Sean Bean she was like, Well he'll be dead before the end of the first act. No point giving him anything.

[@julesmcginnigle9955]

I agree with his point about gandalf being the one to decide to go through moria and 5his not really needing to be changed but i think that peter jackson would have probably done this to 1. Put more emphasis on the importance of the ring bearer by letting frodo make rhe decision and 2. After gandalf "dies" anf the fellowship are out of moria frodo will be feeling extremely guilty as he was the one to make the decision to go through moria. He could be blam8ng himself for his demise. I still wish they stuck to the book for this but maybe this is why jackson done this

[@robertburns2415]

I think Galadriel knew of Boromir's impending death and betrayal of the party. Any gift would be unappreciated and squadered. As to Aragorn, her blessing on the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn very much countered the objection Elrond as Galadriel was Arwen grandmother.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Meh, I don’t get the idea she has strong feelings about Aragorn and Arwen in the movie. As for Boromir, there’s no indication she foresaw his death.

[@robertburns2415]

Tolkien Lore Galadriel's mirror showed many things. Purely assumption of course, but I think much of her insight came from there. Much like the Palantiri that were capable of showing visions.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

But it’s fairly explicit that the Mirror never shows any CERTAIN future, just things that might happen.

[@robertburns2415]

Tolkien Lore just my take with centuries of use she got really good at seperating truth from fiction. Otherwise how did she know Gandalf fell into darkness.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

The same way she and Gandalf and Elrond can see things from afar and communicate telepathically, I imagine. Though in neither the novel nor the movies is that ever made very clear lol.

[@itskarl7575]

About the dwarven skeletons... Sure, orcs could have eaten their flesh, but then the skeletons would hardly still be intact within suits of armour, would they?

[@robertburns2415]

Just curious, is the sword behind you Sting?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

No, it’s Theoden’s sword, Herugrim.

[@liam_2803]

Tolkien Lore do you have sting? Also where did you get glamdring and anduril?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I don’t have Sting, but my brother does. We got all our swords from The Noble Collection.

[@liam_2803]

Tolkien Lore awesome I shall certainly have to check them out! I've learnt a lot from your channel keep up the good work!

[@willkerr7395]

appreciate your eye for detail, but with regards to going into moria, i think there is a simple cinematic reason for making gandalf unwilling to go, in that it makes his death more tragic. he knew there was a chance of awakening an evil that he might have to sacrifice himself to hold off, and that just seems conventionally more heroic if it's done with some level of foreknowledge and reticence. it does of course lead to the massive plot hole you pointed out - why didn't he just tell them and there's not a good answer for that. but i don't think jackson, had gandalf abject to moria for no reason - it was to make his death 'pay off' a little more.

[@Bobba8590]

I was hoping Tolkien Geek to pronounce Anduril correctly. Hugo does it right in the movie.

[@Bobba8590]

Fuck, he has it in behind him.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I know how, but my lazy southern usually wins out lol.

[@Bobba8590]

@@TolkienLorePodcast hoho

[@turin236]

I have to disagree with Aragorn. I personally believe it gives Aragorn a much needed character progression for a movie perspective. In the books he is very determined of who he is, and what he wants to become (ergo quite flat); while in the movie it gives him a bit of depth and especially some doubt in himself. In my opinion I feel this made for a more entertaining viewing experience

[@GreatOldOne9866]

Absolutely.

[@itskarl7575]

I watched the movies before I read the book, and Gandalf's apprehension about Moria puzzled me from the very start. "I would not go through Moria unless I had no other choice". But Gimli wants to go - are we (and he) to assume that Gandalf simply doesn't like dwarves? And it's Gandalf who says "let the ringbearer decide" whether to press on through Redhorn Pass or to go through Moria. "Let the ringbearer decide" - but he tells them nothing of the dangers he obviously knows about, which makes it stupifyingly reckless to leave the decision to the Frodo.

[@danielcronin648]

keep up the videos I love them

[@trailmixgang]

We're not sure how worried Gandalf is about Moria. Maybe, it's only like 2 percent out of 100. He doesn't want to worry Gimli or even the Fellowship unnecessarily. Certainly, not act like he knows everyone in Moria's dead if he doesn't really know that at all. Should he have voiced his concerns? Probably. But he realized the true leader was Frodo and left it up to him. Also, Gimli probably just assumed Gandalf didn't want to go there because Legolas was with them and the elves and dwarves don't get along. He see's Gandalf as an elf lover not a dwarf lover. Honestly, all this seemed obvious to me watching the films.

[@marveltard]

I kinda liked the "there is no gift greater" scene, it kinda pushes forward how important it is, its not just some 'i like u' gift, its like really incredible. And with Aragon showing he is fine with no other gift it drives home the point imho. Like I understand your points and all, I was just never a fan of the whole Monarchies thing like Tolkien was (though he did do a good job of showing both shitty rulers and good ones), so I kinda liked the take of Aragon as a modest and reluctant person to take power (not saying hes like a power-hungry guy in the books or anything, just the change brings this more to light), which means he has more common sense than half the people who want power in the series (being a leader is a responisibity, not just a free title with no effort and everything will be fine). This being said, the characterization breaks down in the last film entirely as they didnt realise they needed more time to build up Aragon to get him to his end place. They should have committed and given him a better arc: the way it is right now is absurd. They should made him a proper arc or just followed the book. And Boromir should have gotten the belt. Or anything really. Maybe something to boost his sacrifice even, for dramatic effect. I wish I remembered more book stuff, havent read any of them since I was a kid. I need to get myself a copy of each and go to town on them.

[@Schwazoom]

I think you're stretching a lot because you prefer the books, which is fine. 1. Aragorn not wanting the sword at first, means there's an arc, and there's also him being inspired by Boromir's death to do so, giving it more. In the movie, the Caleborn and Galadriel gifts seem to have been rolled into the same thing which covers up that inconsistency anyway. Either way, that's far from a major plothole. 2. Going into Moria was not Gandalf's decision, but he leaves the decision up to Frodo. That is also an action of Gandalf. He could have been "NO! YOU WILL BE KILL BY DEMON!!!!". But I agree that the change was unnecessary, I guess they wanted Gimli to get the shock of knowing his kin are dead. 3. The Gimli and Gandalf thing about going to Moria, this seems more like a failure of following its own thread, rather than the deviation from the book being the problem.

[@Arcessitor]

Most all of these he lists aren't plotholes. They are consistent within the story. They might be pointless changes (and might also not be), but they aren't plotholes.