How Lord of the Rings Changed | Book vs. Film

[@aletcetera9883]

“His conviction never wavers and his inherent nature is never challenged” are you shitting me? At the moment of truth Frodo doesn’t toss that ring into the fire, he puts it on and decides to take it. The only reason it doesn’t leave the crack of doom with him is Gollum bites his finger off.

[@Felastu]

THANK YOU

[@brooksboy78]

This isn't even a small error, it's like a HUGE thing that happens in the book that this person just pretends never happens. Kind of just proves that they Wikipedia-ed this shit.

[@markpolo97]

Even the description of his arc is incorrect. It should have been: Frodo agrees to destroy the ring -> Goes on a quest -> Decides to keep the ring -> Is saved by divine providence combined with the covetous nature of a being he once had mercy upon -> Gets credit for completing the quest

[@joedredd1168]

Yeah, it's like he just forgot about that.

[@lenny_1369]

he did imply that he didn't read the other books, and maybe he might have read the thicc lotr book that he showed he has in the vid, but ye, pretty sus that there was bias when it comes to this stuff if he did.

[@IbexWatcher]

Reading Aragorn’s story in the appendices, I was under the impression that he went through his character arc “off screen” before the proper narrative started. The appendices talk about how he spent much of his life growing into his confidence and skill by going throughout middle earth under different guises in order to understand and help the people who he would one day rule over

[@Agarwaen]

Yep, as with his lovestory with Arwen.

[@launder0]

This. If there was no development on Aragorn's character, why wouldn't he ve king from the beginning? He went through the joruney. I like to think that Peter Jackson just thought it would be cooler if it was going on at the same time as the ring war. Which I also like to think that indeed was a good choice, given the shorter lenght of the films.

[@juliosouza4043]

Pretty much what I's going to say, I just looked to see if it wasn't already said. Yeah, Jackson's "snuck" that bit from the appendix all right, so at least that should have been mentioned.

[@Dunybrook]

You can't just leave out the appendices as that's where a lot of the story happens.

[@MelodicQuest]

Why does Michael always do the Keeps ads? Michael: "I guide others to a treasure I cannot hope to obtain."

[@LordMichaelRahl]

*I cannot possess.

[@Will-xf3qe]

I've never seen the man without a hat on, doubt I ever will

[@badluck5647]

@@Will-xf3qe He acts like it is a style choice and not because he is bald.

[@ExtraVictory]

@@badluck5647 So quick to assume to worst, Lmfao. Never change, humanity. Literally if you Google his name, you can see in 2 seconds that he's worn plenty of outfits without hats. He isn't trying to cover up that he's balding lmfao. He IS balding. But just because he always wears a hat when he does these, don't just assume he wears one all the time lmfao. Or is trying to keep some secret. Again a simple 2 second Google search will show he walks around bald all the time Lmfao.

[@badluck5647]

@@ExtraVictory Even his professional Linkin profile has a hat. I started losing my hair at 19, so I can say from experience that hiding your thining hairline with a hat will make you look 10 years younger. Every person I know who started losing their hair in 20s said the same thing. I just find it amusing when people pretend that they just like hats in every setting instead of just admitting they are just hiding how bald they are.

[@colinmcmurtray1827]

Idk if the characters are 100% stagnant in the books. For example, when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli come across the Eomer and his riders of Rohan, Aragorn raised Narsil and proclaimed himself the King of Gondor. We see things from Legolas's perspective and he notes that he has never seen Aragorn be so proud and confident. Towards the end of the Fellowship of the Ring, Gimli states that he and Legolas are now friends, which is unheard of between an elf and dwarf.

[@Arashmickey]

It's also a different style, leaning a bit more on the big picture (which this video has to avoid by necessity) than on the plot and character stories. One of the more fascinating changes I find is how In the book, Aragorn wasn't able to find Frodo and send him off alone into Mordor after Boromir dies. He has to figure out what happened to the hobbits, and then chooses between pursuing Frodo and Sam or Merry and Pippin. Even though I prefer the book version of those events, the change does work in the movie's favor: it visualizes Aragorn's choice to let the Frodo and the Ring go, and it stops itself from falling into repetition with all tracking stuff that follows.

[@weslleyfj]

The thing is: we don't see these evolutions happening. When I first read the books I was looking forward to see how Gimli and Legolas friendship would be developed, but it isn't. By the point they get to Lothlorien we only know they became close. Same is with Aragorn. Where did that confidence came from? We are told he had never been that confident before, but we don't really see him not being confident.

[@colinmcmurtray1827]

@@weslleyfj Agreed. It is character development, but it is flawed character development. My point is, while it is true that the book adaptations of the characters are closer to mythical archetypes, they are not static, which is what was said in the video.

[@morriganmhor5078]

@@weslleyfj You never were for a long time on the trail with somebody, isn't it?

[@weslleyfj]

@@morriganmhor5078 what's your point? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense for them to become friends. I'm saying it would be interesting to see them overcoming their prejudices to become friends.

[@pawned79]

My first LOTR exposure was in the theater during its initial run. I bought the book the same day I saw Fellowship. It was my first novel I ever CHOSE to read, and I read all 1200 some odd pages. Last year, I finished the Lays of Beleriand, which is the ... seventh? book in the Legendarium, and this year I gave a lunch-in-learn presentation on Tolkien’s life. All that because of Jackson’s theatrical Fellowship; amazing film.

[@milkyway208O]

How much did it take to read the Book for the first time?

[@pawned79]

@@milkyway208O I was in my bachelors program, and I would come home from school and read a chapter nearly every evening. I’m unsure how many weeks it took, but I know it was measured in weeks. Conversely, last year I read The Lays of Beleriand in just a few days. Due to working at home, I’ve now taken to listening to audio books. I started The Fall of Gondolin this week, because a friend at work asked me if the Amazon show would have Balrogs in it. I told him “probably not, but if you want Balrogs, try Fall of Gondolin!” The Fall of Gondolin is so metal.

[@milkyway208O]

@@pawned79 im reading lotr now and i feel like im never gonna finish it XD

[@pawned79]

@@milkyway208O At 1200 pages, if you read just twelve pages a day, you’ll finish in just over three months. There’s nothing wrong with that. I would say rushing through it is worse. Where are you right now?

[@jaspervanheycop9722]

"I feel... thin Gandalf, like butter spread over too much bread..." That's straight from the books, and as Bilbo at this point is physically healthy (in fact conspicuously so for a 111 year old) that does get into psychological change. And there are more examples like this throughout the books, the characters internal termoil is just less apparent because the books are both told from a third person omniscient perspective and not visual like a movie. But it is there if you read carefully.

[@KingBobXVI]

So much of the dialogue in the movies is directly lifted from the books. It's really a credit to the actors, because while the kind of romantic prose Tolkien wrote works great in dramatic writing, it can come across as super cheesy on screen. Ian McKellen's Gandalf especially, the guy is just so good at channeling that archaic style of speech and making it epic instead of dumb - who else can shout things like, "the dark fire shall not avail you!" and not just be written off as a cringy nerd, lol. Also, the bit from Bilbo's speech is also lifted from the book - "I don't know more than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half as of you half as well as you deserve" - such a great, goofy line, and delivered perfectly in the movie.

[@lmmalcolm]

I actually used this line on my website when I was transitioning away from the rat-race and into tiny living. As a writer and also reader and teacher of this book for some thirty years, I absolutely agree with you.

[@gusjohnson0235]

100% agree. The character arcs aren't obvious in the books but they all grow and change throughout the book in some cases more than the movies. The Hobbits grow so much that when they get back to the shire they lead a revolution against Sauraman.

[@seanlee566]

Character moments aren't focused and lingered on in the books. But I personally consider the books to have some very powerful character moments. Especially the Frodo and Sam parts.

[@TheAntinomies]

I would say there's more to Tolkien's Frodo than just wants to destroy ring, goes on quest and destroys ring. Tolkien's point was that Frodo failed and couldnt do it. In the end, he's corrupted and gollum destroys himself and the ring because Tolkien's point was that power destroy the very people who hunger and wield it. Frodo also bore the scars and fevers and pain from his quest which changes him so much, he couldnt stay in Middle Earth. So I would say there's more nuance than a static character. Great job with the rest of the vid!

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

There is WAY more to the story than Wisecrack ever got around to noticing. They are once more simply searching for their pet philosophies in the story and overlook ANYTHING not fitting into it.

[@random007nadir]

The cutting of the Scouring of the Shire chapter had one of the biggest influences on thematic difference. The experiences Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin go through during the quest mirrors Tolkien's own as a soldier in WWII. The loss of innocence upon facing evil is something all the hobbits go through. There is the theme of corruption in the book that doesn't really enter the film. The final battle against Saruman in the Shire highlighted that nothing was exempt from the influence of evil, even after Sauron's defeat.

[@aarnavchaturvedi2552]

*WW1, which wasn't really about facing straight evil, but more about the sheer horror of war.

[@gabrielrangel956]

I like how the film visually represents the book but the tone is quite different

[@LDW12887]

I love how you look like a hobit but think youre a quendian

[@Vivi_9]

@@LDW12887 no u

[@thevikingbear2343]

The LOTR extended edition trilogy is annual viewing for me.

[@charliekowittmusic]

Same. It’s just not the same without Aragorn decapitating The Mouth of Sauron.

[@paulae89]

Same.

[@insaincaldo]

Every couple of years. Not that I think I'll be burned out on them, but not taking the chance.

[@PapaMike23]

Annual? You mean weekly, right?

[@sysendify]

12 hour of glory

[@fgorn]

Frodo's character changes are so evident in the book. The scouring of the shire is a perfect example, where frodo never lifts a blade. He always stays back, and doesn't have a light in him anymore. I guess that Tolkien's character development is more subtle, but it definitely exists.

[@brooksboy78]

The Hobbits are the modern protagonists that go through traditional character arcs. They find themselves thrust into a medieval setting and are changed by that experience. Characters like Aragorn and Faramir are definitely medieval archetypes (emulating figures like King Horn or Sir Gawain), but this is to better reinforce the altogether archaic setting the Hobbits find themselves in.

[@brennerc180]

@@brooksboy78 yes! If we’re supposed to have POV characters, it’s the hobbits. Look at how Pippin changes throughout the books-my boy grows up :)

[@Dunybrook]

Yeah, have to agree. The books do a much better job of character development, especially of the 4 hobbits.

[@powerofberzerker9487]

I mean, the tone is different but in the films we still see the elves going away, the talk of men being weak, dwarves only caring for themselves. Once we are in Moria, it's not depicted as a nice place at all, those giant pillars are just impressive architecture but they still send the same destroyed, forgotten kingdom message. Edit: Besides Moria, we see a lot of old statues or broken old statues from the fairer times of Numenor. It isn't said but you can feel and see those key themes that keep the tone similar to the books.

[@Cethinn]

I would argue that both the books and the movies put the same amount of effort into the world but the books, because of the requirements of reading, must draw attention to the details they describe. The movies, however, have that detail in the background. They almost never draw explicit attention to it, with a few exceptions such as The Pillars of Kings, but it's always there. This allows the movies to focus on other details, such as the characters, instead of describing the environment that we can now see.

[@DarkAngelEU]

@@Cethinn I thought it was quite obvious that Man had fallen quite deep in the movies. All the humans you see are either corrupted or scattered, the pure doubt their power exactly because they're so few and far away from each other, their religion has dried up considering all the altars being overgrown with vines and whatnot, kings who can't feed their people? This place sucks! Even in their dialogue, they're not very optimistic. Elves are supposed to be just a myth, dwarves are just... nowhere? The movies always made me doubt whether or not Gimli was the last one alive, for that matter. What I wanna say is, it's not just in the background. It's pretty obvious that Middle Earth lost its magic long ago and The Shire, for some reason, has been spared of that. The moment we leave that place, we're not only told to be afraid of the Nazgûl, but basically everyone except our hobbit friends. Boromir's fall stresses that point, the dissolution of The Fellowship doesn't really make one feel all the merrier either, this realm is tainted with grief.

[@brooksboy78]

It's significantly diluted in the films. You don't get the sense that the world is fundamentally changing for the worse in the adaptation. Even when Men win the War, the book still fills it with inescapable sadness. That isn't present at all in the movies.

[@Max-px5ym]

@@brooksboy78 I think it's for the better. "there is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for" The world has eventually been saved. It's important to show this fight wasn't in vain. It mattered and the world is a brighter place because of it. Frodo's departure at the grey havens with the last elves does still covey a bit of the sadness you're describing, while still showing the hope there is beyond. The ending is perfect imo.

[@DarkAngelEU]

@@Max-px5ym Also, Aragorn's coronation isn't a very happy event. Everyone is glad they now have a king, but even Aragorn makes it quite obvious that there is alot of work left to do, and illustrates the sadness with his song. Frodo leaving is just another blunt hit to the audience that even though they won, there are wounds that need attention to heal properly.

[@psycthom]

I kinda disagree with the character analysis around Frodo - the story revolves around several key decisions from Frodo which required development to reach - choosing to continue to bear the ring from Rivendell - choosing to leave the fellowship and go to Mordor alone, choosing to try and rehab Gollum. His personality is almost completely different at the end of the books becoming a pacifist of sorts, e.g. not wanting to wear a sword at Aragon's crowning, not wanting violence at the scouring of the shire.

[@ghr8184]

The idea that book Frodo didn't spiritually and emotionally struggle with the Ring is bizarre.

[@DragonMaster66]

but... he did

[@ghr8184]

@@DragonMaster66 Exactly. I don't know why the Wisecrack video claimed otherwise.

[@ExtraVictory]

@@ghr8184 wisecrack is an extremely credible channel. They probably just mean it was much less pronounced, since characters don't really change in the books compared to the movie. and since it isn't a visual medium its not as easy as showing a character literally visually degenerate over time, etc. It just seems unlikely to me that wisecrack would be straight up wrong. The videos are too well researched and the hosts are too reliable.

[@ghr8184]

​@@ExtraVictory Indeed, Wisecrack is a great channel with a lot of insights. This video was very insightful, generally, and raised a lot of good points. That's one reason for my use of "bizarre". It's out of place in such a video. The fact remains, though, that the video makes that bizarre claim, which doesn't jive with the book - at least, by my reading of it. Either the Wisecrack research-and-writing team disagrees (reasonable and possible), or they miscommunicated and could/should have extrapolated further. Either way, I think I'd have liked them to unpack that statement further, to either back up that claim or clarify it. I still like the channel and the video.

[@manuam98]

For sure, I just read the books for the first time and Frodo had the biggest arc. The other Hobbits basically start as kids and end up as the most badass adults of the Shire, while Frodo basically gets progressively more depressed to the point where he has to abandon his world to go to heaven, almost like a poetical suicide.

[@DoomRulz]

I'm throwing a Hobbit party. It's a little get-together.

[@Dude_Abides]

Put on some tavern music, sing some shanties and pub songs, serve all drinks in those old timey wooden or clay mugs

[@danw.1250]

Oop, this guy is clever!!

[@insaincaldo]

Technically the truth, even when they are grand events.

[@SuperMrHiggins]

Not sure which I like more, the awesome dry pun. Or that coupled with the reverse pentagram and name.

[@insaincaldo]

@@SuperMrHiggins End of days fest.

[@libertylemonz7145]

The book characters have their flaws and struggles as well. Sam nearly commits suicide when he finds Frodo's apparently dead body in Shelob's lair "[Sam] looked on the bright point of the sword. He thought of the places behind where there was a black brink and an empty fall into nothingness." Also, Frodo attempts to give up the ring several times in the book, first to Gandalf and then to Galadriel. It's only on the insistence of these figures who Frodo seems to view as being wholly superior to himself that he does not give the ring to them that Frodo keeps the ring. There's other obvious moments of growth as well, Legolas and Gimli's friendship, the internal conflict of Théoden. In fact I would say that Théoden's transformation in the books was more psychological than in the movies, he does not physically de-age like he does in the movie but is instead inspired to fight

[@VileLasagna]

I'd say yes to all of those except Frodo, in a way (like, this specific example). In the context of LOTR, Frodo wanting to give the ring away is, in a way, a sign of how powerful he is. The ring exerts influence which manipulates everyone around it. Everyone wants the ring at all times, but Frodo's resistance to its allure is so great that he at several times tries to give the ring away, his fear is greater than his desire for the longest time. It's not until he's in Mordor that the ring finally starts getting the better of him. This is what makes Frodo extraordinary, it's the reason why he is the ring bearer

[@UnreasonableOpinions]

The most distinct difference to me in the books is the strikingly apocalyptic tone the books strike. The threat of Sauron is comparably disastrous, but whereas in the films it is a thing on the verge of happening and sweeping everyone away, the books pose it as a thing that is happening now. Once you leave the Shire, Sauron's agents have power and influence everywhere you go, every time the Fellowship makes it to a safe place you hear of the sacrifices that were made to get them there, every time they plan to move they discuss options lost because of recent conquest or disaster, and each time they leave a safe place the words of those remaining make it seem they are fully expecting to be overrun soon. Sauron reclaiming the Ring isn't the end of the world - it's already the end of the world, and destroying the Ring won't undo the vast damage done.

[@AstonishingRed]

It’s a crime that Viggo never seemed to land as many other roles as his costars in these movies.

[@toknlmou]

Thats quite relative. He just doesn't get blockbusters, but he is really active with indie films and im happy to see him recognised more and more as a thespian rather than just a movie star

[@AstonishingRed]

@@toknlmou This is true. I actually wondered if that was his personal choice. He’s well proven either way.

[@jessmith7324]

He does alot of stuff overseas too. He quite cintent with that as any interview he does shows he values substance over cash. He even corrected Jackson when he offered him a cameo in the hobbit (yes I, like those movies)

[@toknlmou]

Yeah considering he didnt event want to do LotR at first I believe its mostly his personal choice. Also the vast majority of non American non British actors dont do Hollywood often and i dont think they get offered blockbuster roles too. Even mads mikkelsen has only recently recieved roles in blockbusters. Just a different culture and approach to cinema

[@loading2256]

@@toknlmou he's american

[@shlang23]

Not gonna address Gimli and Legolas becoming friends in the book and movie as character growth?

[@FlyteDanny]

It's not that characters don't grow in the book but rather the movies show inner conflicts that the books don't. The LoTR books are more like a coked-up myth told in three instances and the movies are more conventional storytelling fit for the big screen.

[@barneyclarke7051]

@@FlyteDanny I agree it is more muted in the book, but apart from the extra scenes added, I feel they have just exaggerated for the most part. The exception to this would be Legolas, where his doubt/conflict in the book comes after the story has ended. Doubt - see Gandalf, Denethor, Faramir conversation re Frodo. See Aragorn, all the way to post Helm's Deep. See Frodo in month of March. Conflict - Merry preparing for battle with Dernhelm. Sam is literally in a constant spiral of conflict, decision. Gimli, paths of the dead. I would argue that the film removed or reduced some of the classical narrative progressions, e.g. Denethor. There are like the video says, many characters that are fixed in the book - Barliman, Fatty, Bombadil, the sons of elrond/elves in general, Sauron, Shelob - but the story was never them, they were fixtures of the world.

[@funkkymonkey6924]

I think it’s amazing that fans of the book don’t hate the movies unlike many other series. It’s also nice that many many things that where left out often still somewhat personify with little touches.

[@BeeWhistler]

Oh... I have my moments. Fact is, we never in a million years expected a film adaptation this impressive. You have to love it even while you shake your tiny fist at the screen and roar, "FRODO WOULD NEVER SEND SAM AWAY, YOU PHILISTINE!!!"

[@peterang6912]

I don't own any of the hobbit or the lord of the rings films because i hate them so mutch, i even don't like the Harry Potter movies but they i have on blue ray...because they did try to be close of the J.K.'s books... exept the last battle at Hogwart..

[@gaslone79]

Frodo in the books doesn't throw the ring into the lava. Gollum and him wrestle and gollum falls in. That part is not as different as you seem to be trying to make.

[@brooksboy78]

This person has never read the book and it shows.

[@juanpablovillarroel4486]

He wasn't refering to that precisely. In the movie he has doubts about his mission which he never has in the books. The failure to destroy the ring is something that is done to Frodo rather than something Frodo does, both in the book and film. The key element to the type of arc he's mentioning (the normal arcs we see in all stories today) is agency.

[@salez9830]

@@juanpablovillarroel4486 Frodo fails to the temptation at Mount Doom in the most crucial moment - that's an internal moral challenge, not an external one. Also, he clearly develops throughout the story: he starts as a reluctant adventurer wanting just to take the Ring to Rivendell, he becomes a willing Ring-bearer, then even decides to go alone to not let others get corrupted, ending up as a washed up hero, who realizes he will never find peace in this world after what he's been through. He also becomes merciful on the way, which is a problem for him at the beginning.

[@mal9369]

One thing I really like about the religious allegory, as well as the archetypal nature of the characters, is that Tolkien wanted to present the lord of the rings as, rather than a story he wrote, an ancient tale written in old tongues that he translated. Not only does it fit with how he wants to write the book, it being more an exploration of the world and the place where the language lives as opposed to being character-centric, it also makes the archetypal nature of the characters more justified. Not only do our old legends and myths tend to create symbolic characters rather than dynamic ones, but also the process of a tale being passed down through time tends to focus on the lessons and the archetypes more than the character arcs too! So, all that together has the characters make even more sense, at least in my mind. Really good analysis, wisecrack

[@brooksboy78]

It's meant to emulate old epics like Beowulf or Le Morte d'Arthur. However, the Hobbits aren't meant to feel like medieval archetypes and his analysis on Frodo was completely wrong.

[@BrendanKOD]

One of the failings of the movie was how the changes to Frodo at the beginning undercut the corruption of the ring. During the whole trip to Rivendell, Frodo repeatedly showed that despite his limited personal strength, willpower was one thing he had no lack of (The scene at the ford being an exceptional such example). Because of that, as Frodo was slowly crushed by the influence of the ring as the story progressed, in the book that was purely a demonstration of just how powerful the rings influence was, while in the films there was always the sense that it could have been partially from his own weakness.

[@brooksboy78]

The whole point of Frodo is that he doesn't fall until the end. His extraordinary resilience to the Ring is why he was chosen, but he falls to its power very quickly in the movies.

[@Musikur]

I somewhat agree, but I think it's also to do with Peter, Fran and Philippa's philosophy about the ring which is slightly different to Tolkin's. IMHO, they viewed the ring as a corrupting influence akin to a drug or something, something which directly affects those who encounter it and corrupts them the longer they are exposed to it, whereas I think that Tolkin saw it as that, but also that the ring was a representation of greed and corruption, and that it almost had a will of it's own which is never expressed in the films. As Sauron's power grows, mere knowledge of the ring starts to corrupt people such as Denathor and Boromire, and as Frodo approaches the land of Mordor its own will to get Frodo and Sam caught starts to influence the world around them hence why Frodo starts to perceive the ring as more and more heavy. TL;DR, I think the more complete and complex corruption of the ring requires a less corruptible hero than the movie version does, allowing them more leeway to have Frodo more flawed to begin with

[@BrendanKOD]

@@Musikur Hmm, another part of the dynamic is the decision to make the ring more dangerous to use from the start in the movies.

[@Lothiril]

Agreed... I feel like in the book I know why Frodo is carrying the Ring, but the movie sometimes looks like anyone but Frodo would be better suited to carry the Ring. They (needlessly) removed basically all signs of Frodo's courage, even if they were not connected to the Ring and therefore wouldn't even diminish its danger.

[@BeeWhistler]

@@Lothiril Agreed. In the process they ripped out a lot of significant drama and character development, and some of my favorite scenes.

[@DanielGalimidi]

Omitting the Scouring of the Shire and killing off Saruman in the extended edition as a bonus scene was the key difference between the books and the movies for me. Its inclusion would've fixed the "there are too many endings in Return of the King" problem, too, since there was one last arc, and it was a big one. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at all.

[@BeeWhistler]

I held out hope for a while that it might be a bonus feature, but I heard Jackson didn't like it? Which explains why he made so many changes. Why make a story into a film if all you see is a mass of things you want to change?

[@homemacai]

Wouldn't mind an hour long video including the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, at least Gondolin and the story of Turin. please? cheers!

[@noahluke11]

please!!

[@Li01018]

+1

[@sisyphusvasilias3943]

Wait to see their videos on the Amazon LOTR series. They'll go full Silmarillion

[@BeeWhistler]

I agree... as long as someone else makes it. These guys got so much wrong.

[@ardechirpakfar6823]

What was done with LOTR by Peter Jackson is his life achievement.

[@post-leftluddite]

Yeah, and he ruined the only chance at making a decent rendition of the Lord of the Rings for a generation.... I'll quote Christopher Tolkien who hated the movies: "He took my father's story and made an action film for teenage boys", that sums it up perfectly.... Jackson is such a horrible director, these movies were basically Dead Alive with a budget

[@sunriseparrabellum5505]

@@post-leftluddite maybe you don’t understand how difficult it would be to film an accurate adaptation of the entire trilogy. things have to change no matter what adaptation it is, that’s the nature of adaptation. they also need to make their money back which means trying to appeal to as many people as possible while still being as true as possible to the source. given all the limitations of film vs books plus all the extra baggage that comes with the film making process, they did a pretty great job. of course tolkien’s son wouldn’t like them, he grew up on those stories and would naturally feel very protective of them. obviously the books will always be the superior version of the story. i don’t envy jackson, it’s an insanely dense set of books which would be very hard to adapt. of course changes are necessary but as adaptations go it’s a pretty great one

[@xTheReapersSpawn]

@double endemnity You're right the books don't suit the 21st century considering we will all be under the all seeing eye of the CCP soon because of the dumbing down of media to make every movie series a "big budget action film".

[@araccooninthedistance6817]

@@xTheReapersSpawn what does the ccp have to do with Lord of the rings?

[@xTheReapersSpawn]

​ @A Raccoon I was pissed that double endemnity said the books were "worse than the movies" and "Tolkien writes in a very lofty and Edwardian style, which is gay and doesn't suit the 21st century" so I made an over the top analogy that the CCP is like the all seeing eye of Sauron if it had successfully enslaved Middle Earth, just like China is pushing for global control in our real world 21st century. Basically I was pissed at his caveman comment, so I decided to try and scare the caveman.

[@a-aronpre-sent1447]

Just my 2 cents. But I personally think the movies were just about as perfect as one could imagine in terms of content and just what makes general movies great. They were clearly ahead of their time as they even stand up well today. Additionally all 3 films were top notch. Unlike other popular trilogies where one film may be lacking, all three build and improve on one another. Best trilogy ever made and best fantasy books ever written. Thank you.

[@cynthmcgpoet]

The online game has practically everything from the trilogy.

[@vsGoliath96]

Man, good old LOTRO. What a beautiful mess that game is. I just jumped back in a couple days ago with a new character just to see how it was holding up. Used to play a human captain back during the original Mines of Moria expansion.

[@SarmonOflynn]

Didn't Lotro shut down a while ago?

[@vsGoliath96]

@@SarmonOflynn I mean, I don't THINK I've spent the last few days in a fake LOTRO fever dream... If so, I want my $8 for the high elf character race unlock back!

[@SarmonOflynn]

@@vsGoliath96 huh - crazy. I swear I remember it getting shut down... Am I in the Bearenstain universe?

[@vsGoliath96]

@@SarmonOflynn Well, it went FTP and switched developers a couple of times. It's possible it got shut down somewhere in there. I've been out of the loop since around when they added Lothlorien and the level cap was 60.

[@marchess7420]

As many commenters have noted, there is significant charecter growth in the book. For example, eowyn growing from having to define herself by male/warrior standards to relating to faramir as an adult and nobel lady.

[@Johode97]

Didn't Frodo in the books still fall to the temptations of the ring? Proving that no one is safe from corruption?

[@petarded8529]

Except Sam... for the most part 🤔

[@Johode97]

@@petarded8529 But even Sam was influenced when he held the ring. You could see it when he tried to give it back.

[@KingBobXVI]

@@Johode97 - _Book_ Sam, not _movie_ Sam. In the book, the ring tries to tempt him with visions of a great and vast garden spanning the fields of Mordor with him as its ruler, with legions of goblin slaves to tend to his fields and groves and... but Sam kind of snaps out of it like, "why would I want that? I want to tend my own gardens, that's the fun part, and all of Mordor is just way too big, a small garden is much more enjoyable and can have better attention paid to detail..." It's imo a scene meant to show that Sauron's weakness is his lack of understanding of all the peoples of Middle Earth - hobbits don't lust for power, they long for peace and beauty in nature, and Sauron doesn't really understand that.

[@Lothiril]

@@KingBobXVI Even Sam would have given in eventually. He had the Ring for like a day so it didn't really show, while Frodo had it for 17 years. And Sam was aware of that: that while he refused to give in to the Ring he would be in torment constantly. Notice how Tolkien writes "deep down in him lived STILL unconquered his plain hobbit-sense". For the moment Sam was fine because he has no interest in the Ring, but sooner or later Sam would have been corrupted as well, like everyone else.

[@namgilesile6224]

(Spoilers ahead btw) While what you are saying about character change and progression in regards to the books are true, in that it is very linier and rather uncomplicated, I feel like a broader context for a lot of the inspiration for some of the darker or more mature aspects of the book and the conflicts within it should be addressed. Tolkien himself was a veteran of the First World War and experienced many of its horrific aspects (he actually spent much of his time creating the languages and world of middle earth while in a field hospital). Many of the battles and locations are clear allusions to real things from ww1. For a few examples, the dead marshes, helm’s deep, faramir’s raids east of osgiliath are all reminiscent of the battles fields, tactics, and weapons of ww1. (Oliphants and nazgul = early war tanks and planes, many of the battles fields are muddy/dark/dreary, and orcs often make huge charges with enormous losses). Beyond just this, Tolkien also uses his characters as stand ins for vertebrae’s of the war, like himself. Frodo in particular is used in this role, showing visible signs of PTSD and panic attacks in the last few chapters of Return of the King. In my opinion, Tolkien’s main goal in the books (besides for the magical world and epic story, characters, moments, etc.) is to in a way provide a means of escapism and shift from the realities of what he and other former soldiers were going through while he was writing LOTR. In real life, there was no real ‘bad guy’ or villain’, victories were rarely decisive and glorious, and veterans afterwards were forgotten, cast aside, and left to struggle with the physical, emotional, psychological, and financial issues that would be forced upon them after they return home. This idea is expressed in the end of the return of the king when the four companions return to the shire to find their homes occupied, destroyed and/or abandoned and have to struggle to retake and rebuild their home. Moreover, I think one of the biggest differences between the characters’ experiences in LOTR and those of survivors of ww1 was that in LOTR there were overtly tangible figures responsible for the war and its aftermath: sauron began the war, saruman occupied the shire, the orca were inherently evil creatures, and all the heroes are righteous figures who, even when are faced with corruption and conflict, are at the very least sympathetic. The books were made as a means of escapism to a place were costly wars and loss of life were all worth it in the end, there were clear, stoppable evils that could be defeated outright. The movies, on the other hand, don’t need to do this. That’s why I think they feel almost empty or hollow. They’re first and foremost action adventure movies with traditional characters arcs, tropes, and journeys. The books are not so. Characters like Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, are like the conscripted men Tolkien observed around him: most just did what they had to do, and either died or lived. Honestly I could go on and on about the symbolism of almost anything in the books, from the ring (war and the many ways it can manifest in people), the elves (“sensible” and “proper” warfare before the 20th century), etc. etc, nut suffice it to say I think the books just need to be appreciated in a different way then their movie counterparts. They’re meant to more show and idealised world beyond the complexity, brutality, and inherit nuance of the modern day, while the movies exist to show characters persevere and grow while on a quest. While the films are quite excellent in their own right, I just think thematically they can’t compete with the original.

[@mfmfg9957]

100% agreed!

[@ethancoster1324]

So, I guess Frodo's book refusal to destroy the ring after resisting it for so long doesn't count as psychological tension...?

[@CharlieQuartz]

For Tolkien, Frodo’s turn isn’t caused by a fault of character, personal conflict, or inner tension he has to overcome, but a corruption of his soul caused by the fundamental evil of the universe. It isn’t really a choice, but a perversion. A perversion of an archetype that can’t save itself, but can destroy itself (Gollum being the total perversion that must die to destroy evil)

[@anakrajinovic1767]

I think I probably prefer the movies over the books 😅

[@juanpablovillarroel4486]

It's more something that happens to Frodo rather than Frodo actively deciding it. The key element to normal modern character arcs is agency.

[@juanpablovillarroel4486]

@@anakrajinovic1767 That's fair. I prefer Aragorn's movie arc. But that's personal opinion, for the type of story Tolkien wanted to tell, plain arcs work better. The movies are epic adventure movies, the books are intended to be read as mythology.

[@ethancoster1324]

@@juanpablovillarroel4486 And he still makes the choice to keep the ring. Yes, I agree that he was under its influence for a long time, but he could've chosen to take it long before he did.

[@guyr3618]

"Minas Tirith in the films is a symbol of Gondor's might, whereas in the book it's a testament to their more capable, more divine forebears" *shows a clip in which Gandalf talks about how low Gondor has fallen, and how it used to be so much better*

[@COOKIE-gk9oc]

Book always wins. Much more fleshed out then the shorter run times of movies, but Lord of the Ring movies dit a great job of bringing the words of the book to the big screen.

[@charliekowittmusic]

I also prefer the book as the definitive LOTR story. But I have to say it’s a labor and I won’t read it again any time soon. But I watch the movies every year without exception.

[@sisyphusvasilias3943]

That's why the multi season Amazon Episodal series will expand the world from the film.

[@hunting4honeys]

I've always usually think the same - except with LotR, I just don't think Tolkien is a good writer, the books are much too bloated imo

[@COOKIE-gk9oc]

@@hunting4honeys Get where you are coming from. Tolkien focuses more on describing the world then focusing on characters. That's why I prefer George R.R books because he focuses more on developing characters then describing the world or putting focus on the journeys, but I wouldn't say Tolkiens writing is bad, it's just not you're cup of tea.

[@hunting4honeys]

@@COOKIE-gk9oc much better put!

[@guyr3618]

"The characters in the Lord of the Rings books don't grow" is one hell of a hot take, given that the whole thing ends with the hobbits coming back home and showing how much tougher they are now by defeating Saruman all on their own. Even Aragorn voices doubts about his own ability to lead people in book 2.

[@BeeWhistler]

Seriously... I thought Lord of the Rings was one long book about the vast changes multiple characters undergo throughout a prolonged quest to save their world, but apparently these folks didn't get that at all. There's almost no character who comes out of the events unchanged, even the elves. Just Bombadil. Even the Shire itself changes, and in the movies it doesn't. He didn't mention that.

[@JonathanRossRogers]

This video didn't mention the character who changed the most from book to movie: Faramir. In the book, he was honorable to a fault and probably closer to an archetype of virtue than the major characters. In the movie, he was jealous and insecure, but redeemed himself in the end.

[@jeremycorter1550]

After watching this video, I kind of see the book as the legendary retelling of the story that the movie shows. That's why the characters are more mythic and symbolic in the books. It would be like any other myth: inspired by true events.

[@DanielSilva-qf6nf]

Because you are completely right; that´s exactly what the books are. Watch this fantastic video by Hello Future Me about LOTR´s unreliable narrator: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYGQk6V4rbV5gM0 It really gives you a deeper appreciation for Tolkien.

[@jeremycorter1550]

@@DanielSilva-qf6nf I'll give it a watch!

[@almonious520]

In the forward, Tolkien clearly states nothing in the novel is intended as allegory yet Wisecrack sees Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf as allegories for the threefold ministry of Jesus. Wise indeed.

[@powerofberzerker9487]

Minas Tirith and its main symbol The White Tree, in the movies, are still used similarly to the book. In extended scene we also have a line from Gandalf how Denethor is an unworthy ruler when compared to the Kings of olden times.

[@death369reaper]

the tree was different, in the movie it revives when Aragon assume the throne, in the book, Gandalf takes him to a mountain where a hidden sampling of the tree was grown, and he replaces the dying tree with it. Denethor is way more cunning in the books, he knows everything, and is a master in picking hints from what it wasn't said in a conversation and the sudden movements and face expressions, he kept the city protected from the growing forces of mordor, being himself the one that asks Rohan for help, as wel as the southern kingdom, and was preparing to an all out confrontation by reinforcing the walls and other strongholds around minas tirith. he was able to use the palantir to gather information around his kingdom and mordor and kept his sanity, it wasn't until the injury of Faramir, that was brought be cause of his distrust of Gandalf, that he used the palantir while been weaken mentality and was finally corrupted by sauron, since all the events of him going crazy, was while he was holding it the whole time, Gandalf noticing that it was sauron through it that was making him do it.

[@powerofberzerker9487]

@@death369reaper I know that, but at the end of the day, in the movies, the tree is withering as a symbol of lesser ruler. As the rightful king is coming closer to the city, the tree appears blooming after so many years of being dead.

[@morrisgautreau6704]

The Extended Cuts are the ones I go to! Peter Jackson's vision is the way it had to be done. I really cannot think of any other director who could have done better! There are no movies that is EXACTLY like the books!

[@KingBobXVI]

Yep, what works in film and what works in print are two different things - they're simply different mediums. An even more "faithful" adaptation of the books could have easily flopped in theaters.

[@jf1456]

Gollum fall was in fact one of the very few times Iluvatar intervented in the world. Or so I've heard

[@IamEchelon]

Care to elaborate? Or is there a link to this info?

[@corbingovers7559]

@@IamEchelon there's a running theme that the luck that happens is divine providence like the ring coming to bilbo instead of one of the many orcs or goblins that swarmed the Misty mountains.

[@meduseldtales3383]

@@IamEchelon Check Letters of JRR Tolkien, letter 246. In short: "Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed."

[@Lothiril]

This, and in a way a result of Frodo using the One Ring - one of the few times he ever used it, and I believe the only time he used its power on another person. It's completely ignored in the movies. but when Gollum first attacks Frodo on the slopes of Mount Doom, Frodo actually overpowers him. And then Frodo, clutching the Ring, tells Gollum "If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom" and it's not even clear if this is Frodo or the Ring speaking. And then this is exactly what happens: when Gollum attacks Frodo inside Mount Doom, he falls into the Fire. It's a shame this was completely left out in the movies.

[@Ropya]

For me, the changes thta mattered most were the more direct ones. Like the differences in the shire at the end between the two, and how Sam and the Dirt played such a huge role in the book.

[@KingBobXVI]

That's a common major complaint, that the film removed the scouring of the shire, but when it comes down to it film and books are different mediums and like he said, things that worked well in writing may or may not work on screen and vice versa. The scouring works in the context of the book's world building pseudo-historical focus, but on screen in the much more narrative driven version of the story, it doesn't really add anything. The climax of the movie is the destruction of the ring, that's the big goal and wraps up the main plot point. In film, that's the point where you want to start winding down the movie. The 20 minutes or so that follows cleanly wraps up all the loose character arcs and gives the story a clean conclusion. If they tossed in the scouring though, it would interrupt the ending with what is essentially a sidequest that ultimately doesn't actually change any outcomes. Again, the primary climax of the movie was the end of the ring, with that completed, an extra story with much lower stakes and no character development would just result in an awkward, stunted, and interrupted conclusion to the story. Let alone another hour or so of runtime if you didn't want it to literally just be a random quick battle scene out of nowhere.

[@VileLasagna]

@@KingBobXVI It's also interesting that one of the roles the scouring of the Shire plays narratively is precisely showing character growth, in particular for Merry and Pippin. When they left the Shire, both were basically the sassy prankster kids. When they come back, Merry "killed" the Witch King, Pippin gutted a troll by himself... and it shows, they're back as seasoned warriors and they lead the retaking of the Shire. The quest they went on changed them greatly in ways that would never have happened had they stayed

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

The Fellowship of the Ring is turning 20 this year and I don't think I've seen fantasy put on screen that came even close to being this great. Except Game Of Thrones, arguably.

[@iodem2]

"The multi-part exploration of a young boy's hicking journey..." Ehhmmm Frodo was 50 when he set out to Bree. Just saying 😁

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

And it only got worse from there on. I'm not sure if they went with only another person's philosophical analysis of the books without ever touching one single volume themselves, took the Cliff Notes or were comfortable with an audiobook, but so much of the books went over their head it's embarassing. Typical for "Philosophy" channels only looking for their favorite tropes and ignoring actually looking at anything besides them.

[@elektrikhd]

He wasn't a boy, but he was still young by Hobbit standards. There's also the angle that Hobbits are a bit "childlike" in some regards. Arguably more to suggest that they're more "pure" and "innocent."

[@iodem2]

@@elektrikhd hobbits go through adolesence from 13 to 33 (the tweens), they come of age at 33, at 50 Frodo wasn't young, he was a middle age hobbit (100 is the average expected life spam)

[@BeeWhistler]

@@iodem2 I think he was meant to be in his prime. Maybe 30 by our standards. Pippin of course was more of a teenager, ironically!

[@Anonymous0C]

"More powerful than Gandalf." Oh my sweet summer child..

[@maartmeloen5220]

He probably tried to reference the Valar

[@xxminotaurxx4]

Those other beings he mentions are far more powerful than Gandalf. Gandalf belongs to the order of the Maiar, same as all the wizards, Sauron and the Balrogs which are the servants to the Valar.

[@Anonymous0C]

@@xxminotaurxx4 Yep. I know all that. But I still don't agree.

[@xxminotaurxx4]

@@Anonymous0C Fair enough

[@alanpope8385]

Aragorn earns the crown in the film's rather than just collecting it in the books? Stunning idea! I'm definitely stunned.

[@BeeWhistler]

That's one of the few points of change I waver over. I liked Aragorn's confidence and strength in the books but I do see how he is one of the few characters who didn't change. And that this could be kinda lame on film.

[@AmyHoward13]

I really appreciated the film version for the agency it gave Eowyn. In the book she just existed as a plot device to throw herself at Aragorn and kill the Witch King. Peter Jackson made her into a whole badass person.

[@brooksboy78]

But this isn't true at all. Éowyn has a legitimate character arc in the book. She is depressed and suicidal, and her idealization of battle is an extension of this. It's only after she's healed in the Houses of Healing that she realizes that her mindset was slowly killing her and she has to redirect this into an entirely different lifestyle, which ultimately saves her from her despair and inner suffering. She is meant to emulate Tolkien's anti-war themes more than any other character. Her entire arc in the Houses of Healing is entirely cut in the films, which is like... the point of her whole character. Tolkien really exemplifies the mental and emotional cost of war through her, which is something diluted (or altogether missing) in the films.

[@BanjoSick]

I would call that one of the failings of the movies. LotR is not about being a “badass”.

[@jdc6274]

Furthermore, I think Tolkien made it pretty clear that Eowyn's "love" for Aragorn was just her unhealthy idealization of what he represented in her own mind, namely the glory of war. Part of her arc in the book was moving past that. I agree that P.J. did a good job adapting her to the big screen, but to say that Eowyn was nothing more than a generic damsel in the books is just factually incorrect.

[@brooksboy78]

@@jdc6274 Yes, that's completely true. Her love for Aragorn was just an extension of her love for war and glory. She loved the idea of Aragorn rather than Aragorn himself.

[@AntediluvianRomance]

Were that speech about Arwen, I would agree. She's basically a non-character in the book. But Eowyn is no plot device, she's all about trying to get people to see her for a person, not for a generic woman.

[@porkupineexe6862]

KZbin pushed me this literally moments after I set down my copy of the Encyclopedia of Tolkien. IT KNOWS

[@FacundoTroitero]

Conceiled within his fortress the eye of google sees all

[@seansmith7811]

I am still waiting for you guys to do a Dexter vs. Deathnote: Taking Justice into your own hands video. Comparing Dexter Morgan to Light Yagami when its comes to dealing with criminals by assuming the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner in a society that has laws.

[@narsil1984]

You guys are entitled to your take on LotR but I have to respectfully disagree on the core ideas here. Doing an analysis on the trilogy whilst ignoring the annexes and Silmarillion is acceptable, but the context detailed knowledge of them offers helps. I think the main flaw in your analysis is based on your over-reliance on Tolkien's catholicism and application of that fact to his entire work. Yeah, the guy was religious... does it show in his writing? Probably. The world he created has influences in catholicism, but I'd say it's **very** debatable if those influences are greater than those of greco-roman or norse mythology: his world creation and pantheon are concerned with **many** gods, not just one. While yes, Eru Iluvatar is the prime guy, the Valar and Maia are much more than christian angels and act alot more like olympian gods or those of Valhalla. Now, to your 2 main points: #1 End of the world. The world in the third age is a lesser version of the old world, that much is true. There is alot of wishful remembrance of the olden times, BUT, it's important to remember that those olden times werent just golden happy happy perfect times. The entire first age is marked by the war against Morgoth, Sauron's boss. We dont need to know where Nargothrond is, maybe, but you used an image of it...with the first dragon, Glaurung, ON the picture. So you are showing Nargothrond the moment it was destroyed, most inhabitants murdered. The point is, the past in Tolkien's world isnt a better, more happy time for everyone, it's greater - the battle of good vs evil was happening with more powerful foes on both sides, essentially. What this means for the 3rd age is **not** that the world is about to end or that everything was peachy-dory before, it means that the ancient peoples were more "powerful", for lack of a better term. There clearly **is** hope in the books for what comes after, as there is a 4th age - one of renewal, one where Gondor grows again, where the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor are united under the rule of Aragorn and his house. Hundreds of years that we know of are years of increased prosperity. The city of Minas Tirith is repaired and improved: Legolas and Gimli speak of their plans (and we know from the annexes that these plans will be executed) to improve the city: gates of Mithril, trees in the city and in Ithilien... essentially, the beginning of the 4th age will be ALOT better than the end of the 3rd. This is not to say that the slow decline over the ages isnt happening. The elves will leave, the wizards are gone, the dwarves will fade... essentially, the world will become a bit less magical, more dull maybe. Eventually, Tolkien said there would be an "end of the world" after the Dagor Dagorath, the final battle of good vs evil, where all the beings we know will rise once more to duke it out - the world then will be destroyed and renewed. This has a bit of christian apocalypse in it, but also alot of norse Ragnarok. Bottom line here, the end of the 3rd age isnt an "end of the world" in the books, it marks a renewal, a chance to build something once more. Maybe it'd be possible to view the world of Tolkien on a graph as a cyclical up and down, up when new civilisations arise and stuff is built, before evil destroys it, is vanquished and the cycle begins a-new... each time, the "high" point of that cycle is a bit lower though, as the world is less powerful, less magical. #2 Characters. Gonna be shorter here, I think you're missing the point that the hobbits are the main characters in the books. All the non-hobbits are less of a focus, they dont change as much, though there are arcs: Gimli's and Legolas' friendship may be symbolic, but we go from mutual dislike because of racial hatred to an eternal (literally) friendship. As for the Hobbits: Pippin and Merry are less of a joke in the books. They are young characters that turn from useless baggage to war heroes, with growth in between, during their time with the orcs, the ents and service to Rohan/Gondor. They also grow physically, make of that what you will. Sam is a mere lowly gardener when the book starts, discovers his courage during the voyage, is a model for wanting to stay a simple hobbit BUT he clearly grows in character. He even "gets the girl" at the end and becomes a mayor for crying out loud! Frodo... yeah, he changes and grows into an ethereal "elvish" being in contact with the ring, maybe less of an arc. But Id strongly disagree that Tolkien just tells us of his trauma: people complained for years that the end is too long, maybe it'd be nice to pay attention though. His injuries never stop causing him pain throughout the books, the Morghul blade especially, but also his spider sting. He departs from the Shire as a brave Hobbit and returns as one of the great and wise of the world, as remarked by Saruman - yet he cannot enjoy his victory and must depart, showing his wounds changed him too much. This has been too long, so Ill try to be brief on the actual biggest differences book/film in my opinion: #1 Character actions. Generally, characters act dumber in the movies, in a way that actually often makes the runtime longer and creates weird scenes that werent needed. Faramir drags the Hobbits to Osgiliath instead of just letting them go with provisions and advice as in the books. Treebeard first refuses to attack Isengard and needs visual proof his trees were hacked down - he knows for a fact this is happening from the first time we meet him in the books and wants to go. #2 Crucial changes for the "age of men" narrative. The point of the story if there has to be one is that the 4th age will be *the age of men*, i.e. where mankind will finally come into its own and not depend on the other races. To hammer that message home, elves and dwarves are absent from the main events of the books (even if they play their roles in the war, as told by annexes). Only Legolas and Gimli are there as witnesses and symbols, the battles we see are the affair of mortal men. The films change this narrative to show off expensive props, which is probably the main reason for including Haldir's elves in the Helm's Deep battle. There are no elves there in the books. Similarly, the oathbreakers summoned by Aragorn only help him chase away the corsairs (also men, fearful of the dead) from southern Gondor, thus allowing him to gather all the gondorian soldiers there and sail north with them. The battle scene could have been cooler with men there, the armies of Mordor standing between Eomer and Aragorn, which is the pay-off of one of the coolest lines of bro-friendship in the books. Thematically, it also works better because it means the battle on Pelennor is won by men only, not by ghosts saving everybody in a neat wave. #3 Just for fun: elves are dull in the movies. The behaviour of elves in the movies as having no humour, being stiff vegetarians is such nonsense. In the books, they laugh and get drunk and arent as serious - especially where sindar or sylvan elves are concerned. Legolas is very much part of those groups (half sindar, half sylvan), and no high and mighty high elf (noldor) as some of the ones in Rivendell are.... less of an important change, but it always annoyed me that all elves were anti-fun in the films.

[@jordanrahn5775]

Love the extended trilogy. The books are interesting for sure, but prefer the movies myself

[@KD9YCE]

Inspired by the Snyder cut, a new "Jackson Cut" version of LOTR will be coming out soon. All three movies will have a 200 hour runtime.

[@sethcoleman2906]

nothing would be left on the cutting room floor.

[@topramen5344]

“Goes on a quest” is painting with a pretty broad brush there

[@willek1335]

It would be interesting to look at the exclusive limitations that movies and books differ: Much shorter format in film. Largely different audience.

[@BeeWhistler]

What you describe as focusing on the characters, I describe as taking a book you considered good enough to film at great expense and gutting character motivations to the point of being unrecognizable. The characters did indeed have depth in the book. They did change and evolve. Even the odd tweak could be done without deciding that Rohan hates Gondor and Gondor hates Rohan and that Aragorn has to be convinced to be king, that Faramir would start to take Frodo back to Denethor, and worst of all, that Frodo would EVER send Sam away over something as pedestrian and uninventive as that stupid lembas tossing scheme Peter Jackson inserted in the story. Frodo is a mass of internal conflict in the book and he is constantly challenged! He nearly smacks Sam more than once when he feels the Ring's influence! Legolas and Gimli developed an unexpected friendship through scenes very much shown in the book... sharing sorrows and joys as people do. Seeing wonders together, fighting side by side, working together to help the hobbits and overcoming their prejudices in the process. It's all there. You could have gone over the differences without inserting your nonsensical interpretations. In your attempts to lick the boots of the filmmakers you've basically praised them for taking the intended story the author wrote and undermining things he chose to include. Say it's Jackson's interpretation but don't insult our intelligence by acting like Jackson did us a favor. He did a brilliant job in so many areas... casting, costumes, sets, music, all sorts of visual things and even the directing. But when it came to the script, he gutted it with a Morgul blade. I genuinely understood a lot of the changes... removing Bombadil, Ghân-buri-Ghân, and even the Scouring of the Shire, though that was one of my favorite parts. A lot of changes were needed to bring it to film. But he then went full God mode (ironically since according to you he stripped away any religion apparently) and changed whatever he thought wasn't interesting enough. He wanted a LOTR soap opera. What Jackson did to LOTR is best summed up in a line from one of his Hobbit movies... "These are Rhosgobel rabbits!" Jackson does what he pleases even if it's stupid. As a result, I never finished his Hobbit movies and struggle to rewatch LOTR despite how much I enjoyed them initially.

[@lmmalcolm]

We'll be studying this video in the writing class I teach. Thank you :)

[@oliverkidd2741]

So Tolkien who survived ww1 hated how things had changed technology culture so he wrote an entire saga were everyone is like o the good old days before the forces of the world blew everything up.

[@Professor_Gamble]

yes, this is known

[@KingBobXVI]

Yeah, pretty much. It was also intended as a sort of mythological history for England, because England doesn't really have its own mythical past. Even the story of King Arthur originates in France.

[@ivanvoronov3871]

@@KingBobXVI beowulf?

[@GrimAhren]

@@ivanvoronov3871 even though this was written in England, it comes from Norse culture. England was originally populated by Celtic people who got invaded by the Anglo-Saxons. England ended up having norse mythology beliefs, and I think that most of the Celtic culture was lost. Point being that modern English people didn't have a vast mythology like the Egyptians, or the Greeks, both of which had mythologies that originated within their own native cultures, instead of being brought by an invading force

[@PilgrimVisions]

@@ivanvoronov3871 A single epic extant in a single early-medieval manuscript does not a mythology make. Beowulf was pretty obscure prior to Tolkien's scholarship on it.

[@jasonblalock4429]

Heh, using art from the Bakshi movie to represent the book is an... interesting choice.

[@TheCow-j1l]

And fanart

[@BeeWhistler]

I mean, they recreated a shot from the Bakshi in it... Proudfeet!

[@jasonblalock4429]

@@BeeWhistler Oh yeah, Jackson definitely took some inspiration from Bakshi's movie. The shot of the Hobbits cowering under the tree the first time they see a Black Rider is also very similar to Bakshi's staging.

[@iryisa]

I don't think Tolkien did that "characters are aspects of Jesus" thing. He never said he did. But he did say he hated and avoided allegories. He also was ok with characters growing - Aragorn's arc is straight from the appendices. An afterthought.

[@gustavodeoliveira5254]

Not to mention that the "death and rebirth" of Aragorn does not exist in the books, so it doesn't make much sense

[@AntediluvianRomance]

I can totally see the aspects of Jesus theory working, not as an allegory, but as a sublime theme. Also, yeah, Aragorn doesn't have a clear-cut "rebirth" story, but he has a kind of descent into hell journey, freeing a bunch of lost souls and being presumed dead by some people while doing that.

[@JeroenDoes]

The fellowship of the ring was a adventure movie. The two towers and return of the king were war movies.

[@futball51]

I mean I need to reread the books it’s been a decade but anything will have a tonal shift if you describe their story with just 3 steps. I could describe Frodo’s journey in the movie as wants to destroy the ring does a quest destroys the ring

[@michakowalczyk6826]

LOTR is meant to be written from the perspective of Frodo, later revised and expanded by scholars from Gondor. It stands to reason that the characters would be more archetypes than people and the details of their struggles omitted. Perhaps the reason Aragorn is portrayed as a paragon of virtue is because Frodo saw him that way and the scholars wanted to mythicize Aragorn. Which makes the movies a valid attempt to portray the events of the story as they happened, without Frodo and the sholars' biases. Tim at Hello Future Me has a great video on this subject

[@brennerc180]

You can usually tell when Findegil, King’s Writer, steps in as narrator :)

[@rauldinho]

whatever happened to thug notes?? is he doing something on another channel?? would love seeing him again

[@duncanmartin-baker6068]

Yes! More book talk plz🙏 #ripthugnotes

[@cabeskywalker4346]

Wait hold up. Aragorn's 'death and rebirth' that you showed wasn't in the book. The battle that made him fall of the cliff in the movie didn't even happen. Is there somewhere else in the book that could still represent this though? Maybe his passage through the land of the dead?

[@AntediluvianRomance]

The passage I think surely qualifies. People around think it's certain death and pretty much write Aragorn's party off the list when they go there. Also, descent into a place for the damned and freeing souls is pretty much a Jesus move by itself.

[@petraarkian7720]

Less direct analogy is pretty pro Tolkien as he frequently stated he did not care for allagory. (In contrast to his friend CS Lewis who wrote Narnia which is pretty much one big allagory.)

[@jackward6726]

The skill involved in giving every character a character arc in the films still amazes me. Just look at Merry. in the Two Towers he struggles more than Pippin physically and comes to the realisation that their quest isn't just a quest, the world and everything he loves could be destroyed, "there won't be a Shire Pippin!". In the last film he's a more melancholy character who just wants to play his part, even though he believes he will die. Pippin on the other hand doesn't fully accept death until he comes face to face with it at the battle of Minas Tirith

[@davidg.8031]

That's... literally their arc in the books...

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@davidg.8031 Yeah, Jackson generally was content with .... interpreting the book's contents when he had to shorten things up or compress them to save time, he did not invent all that much new, beyond what the books contained. Makes the video a bit baffling as they seem to actively unsee these aspects, but that's not the first time Wisecrack fishes only for specific things and is blind to everything else about a work. Bit sad that it was such a major thing they managed to not get in Tolkien, but well... stuff happens.

[@CrayTrey]

Reading the books finally after years of putting it off and it’s made me appreciate how well the movies were adapted.

[@daviddowney717]

3:10 The actual beginning of this fking video.

[@markkarlo4869]

The season of lent has always been the perfect time to re-watch the LOTR movies, much like my elders thing to watch the Ten Commandments movie...

[@waitssharpe7491]

The last point is pretty interesting. Not sure I like the undermining of such an important theme in the book, but the characters are just so well written I can’t imagine them changing

[@TheThagenesis]

the films certainly are a great way to make Tolkien's work accessible to a broader audience without losing its identity because the books are exhausting to read at times

[@yezdanus]

3:25 i lit the pitch ditch in stronghold...

[@jonskowitz]

I really appreciated you using artwork from the Bashki adaptation.

[@petraarkian7720]

Biggest character change: Sam would NEVER leave Frodo.

[@MyNameHandle]

The Lord of the Rings are incredible, maybe the only movies that I like more than the books To be fair, I grew up with the movies since I was a kid and have watched the films hundreds of times. I didn’t read the books until my teens.

[@moroch]

I still feel the ending of the movies feels short compared to the books, but I can accept it, just as I can accept Tom Bambodil missing from the story because it would not work in the movies. What really ruined the movies for me was the changes Peter Jackon made to Faramir just to show more CGI, that just ruined his entire story which was way deeper than just a secondary character in the books, in my opinion.

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Big win for using the characters from the animated film! 👍

[@seanlee566]

Aragon had plenty of character tension the books. But as stoic character the author didn't do much to delves into it, but there is much implied. Submitting to Gandalf on the decision to go to Moria, his awareness that he might not be fully accepted as king, going out of his way to find Merry and Pippin knowing it delays their world saving quest, his relationship with Arwen. I love Mortensen's portrayal of Aragon, but just because the books are more subtle or leaves more to be implied doesnt make it less powerful.

[@devinpowers4132]

Reading these books, those songs are so dense. I had forgotten how important they are to the story. Might be due for a reread....

[@thomasrockhoff]

This is the first time I've seen someone on KZbin mention the threefold office. My friends at seminary used to talk about that all the time. I could go on and on about the Christian themes in LotR. Great episode for Holy Week.

[@evennot]

Hats off to you! What an amazing phenomenon is this show. Packaging the work that 20 years ago was only found in obscure magazines into a brief digestible form, without dumbing it down, and opening deeper perspective to more people

[@mikealexander1935]

In the film Jackson gave a number of Gandalf's lines to Aragorn, which assisted in telling the story of Aragorn earning the crown of Gondor. This was the right move because one needs verisimilitude to aid in the suspension of believe required of a fantasy tale. On the other hand, Jackson made Denethor more of a clueless dick than he was in the books and I think he went overboard there, in ways that detracted from the story. People's actions have to make sense in a film for it to be successful--at least a modern one. Some characters have to be people, not just symbols.

[@ruukaoz]

one thing i didn't like about the second movie is that they changed Faramir. In the books Faramir was never tempted by the ring, and let Frodo and Sam go knowing they have the ring. I didn't like how they changed him, but now i think I understand that choice. How a movie need to focus more on characters, and so they given them character arks. Now i see they did a good job. Faramir too got an arc that is plausible, and I might not mind the change at all. Got to see them again :)

[@skeletopedia3122]

8:10 Did Tolkien base Middle Earth on Europe? I read somewhere that his view of Europe shaped the different locations in the book.

[@keithcurtis]

He explicitly states he did in his Letters.

[@WhatsYourGhostStory]

Friendly note to check your video description. You still list it as American Psycho, "Let’s find out in this new episode of Book vs. Film: American Psycho." Just looking out! Great video as always!

[@johnwilkinsoniv1746]

I like a lot of this, particularly the associations you reveal between JRRT and his writing. However, I have to disagree with how you characterize Aragorn - not in how in the films he has more of an arc than we see in the book, rather the idea that the character in the book has no arc, and just "collects" his kingship at the end. I think a more valid interpretation is that the trilogy gives us a snapshot of the character Aragorn, and that snapshot reveals the very end of the arc. The film has to portray all the characters during this "snapshot" period, and I think the choice to try to fit all of Aragorn's lifetime arc into the screen time of the movie was a bad mistake that essentially largely ruined the character. Aragorn in the book is OLD. He is seasoned by a lifetime (for normal men) of bringing the fight to Sauron's servants, sometimes in direct service to Gondor and Rohan, otherwise with the rangers or acting alone. He is meant to be what he is in the book - entirely self-confident and assured. He has worked a lifetime to reach the point that is focused on in the book and film where he now has a chance to regain his heritage. He is the last scion of the greatest houses of men and knows it. The sword is reforged for him as a sign that history has indeed reached this pivotal point. I apologize for the rant, but seeing Aragorn being constantly indecisive and questioning himself was one of the things that really bothered me about the movies. Among others (Haldir and Lorien elves fighting at Helm's deep?????)... Particularly when they made such good choices in other areas. Cheers!

[@MiKi-sx3tt]

I live for movie Aragorn For all the nine central figures to have their own character arc is really cool. Even the side character have their own arc. (I love Faramir's character arc). The movie is truly a masterpiece

[@me-nah3343]

The music is too loud at points. But great analysis, as usual.

[@R2-DPOO]

Would love to see one on invincible once the first season wraps

[@jackfairy666]

How about doing a “Book vs. Film” vid about the Bonfire of the Vanities?

[@cdagyekybcrpaa]

This might sound blasphemous, but I much prefer the characters as they are in the films than in the books. I feel with Tolkien, he did an outstanding job in creating the setting and the basics of the characters, but there’s no tension with them and they’re a bit undercooked for my tastes since they are in fact static archetypes. I feel that what Peter Jackson essentially did was take this basis and used it to flesh out the characters to make them more relatable, human, and more interesting. While having the characters be archetypes works in myths, having them be as such in a novel does feel a bit hollow and takes away dramatic tension.

[@jonnydent825]

I agree Jackson and company had to change the characters from archetypes to dynamic characters with arcs, I just don't think those arcs are especially well done. What changes for Aragorn that makes him willing to take up the crown? Not much, imho. It feels shoehorned in.

[@brooksboy78]

Same with Faramir. What makes him change other than the plot needing him to do so?

[@brianalambert1192]

I'd still argue that the movies convey the religious aspects of the original story, just not as heavily. Most people who watch these movies pick up the Christian themes, the themes of temptation, self sacrifice, a never ending battle against evil, the flawed nature of humans that is critical to religious teachings. I think the movies just shift the focus on which themes the story looks at, pointing them at the more human themes that everyone, not just Christians, can relate to

[@nickjones9867]

Michael: **fantastic and subtle reading of a verse from LOTR** KZbin: HEY DO U WANT DOMINOOOOOOOZZZZ?!?!!!??***

[@Snatcher42]

I don't think the films lost the idea of a fading world. They just had to convey it in different ways. Some more subtle, but some not. I mean, these are the very first words we hear: The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost.

[@smaug1234]

The thing that I think is missed most is the Two Towers cliff hanger, that's a whole half book you have to read to get back to that storyline, it changes what we know as we watch the story, building suspense. The other one I don't like is making Sauron an actual flaming eye, he has a physical form, Gollum says he only has 3 fingers on one of his hands, and Gollum is the only character we meet, excluding perhaps one of the elves, personally that's the closest thing to a look of him we get in the books, the movie should have done the same but that's nitpicky :)

[@charlesm6994]

Yes, totally reasonable. Making and remaking both the story and how it’s presented is essential in our fluid and constantly changing culture to keep the story, any story alive.

[@davidhummel250]

Hey Wisecrack you forgot the other movie; Ralph Bakshi created "The Hobbit" film in 1977 and "The Lord of the Rings" in 1978. He made those movies way before Peter Jackson made those movies as we know today! You should look and reviews all of Ralph Bakshi works.

[@theworldsmostplagiarizedma2436]

I think it's time for me to revisit the books for the 5th or 6th time. I always end up picking up way more things with read, new perspectives on top of new perspectives. It's interesting to watch your favorite stories mature as you do.