Nostalgic Woman – Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Nostalgic Woman – Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

“My name is Bilbo Baggins.” Why not? Much as I was disappointed in the Hobbit, it is hard to ignore that the industry climate this… Hydra… was created in is very different from the industry that produced the Lord of The Rings trilogy, which went into production. 13 years ago, so the original trilogy kind of crossed the nostalgia border a little while ago. So I kind of have to admit: my disappointment in the Hobbit stems largely from trends that sprung up from the original trilogy.. The original Franchise changed the way movies are packaged, filmed, marketed and If Transformers was the game change for modern-film esthetic (and marketing), Lord of The Rings was the game change for film- -franchise (and marketing). So for the next three episodes We are going to look at the product, the content, the effect on the industry and culture that was the original Lord of the Rings film trilogy; starting with the Fellowship of The Ring, “the best film”: the most cohesive; well edited and well written; best adapted film of the three Shall we? “Much that once was is lost For none now live who remember it” Except for you… That guy… This guy… this other guy… Okay, there are plenty of people who now live that remember it, but it was a cool line So let’s talk a little bit about Genre I’ve always found it a bit odd that Fantasy and Science Fiction are lumped together in the bookstore, frustrating even, as I would not consider myself much of a fantasy fan. The two genres have a touch of an ideological split and while obviously every individual work has a different theme and purpose and level of originaly, yada yada yada The basic gist is that fantasy is more ‘history oriented’ and backwards looking; where science fiction is more Speculation and ‘science oriented’ and forwards-looking; obviously these things exist on a bit of a spectrum, you look at something like “Dune” which is sort of a weird futuristic(?) slash historical(?) fiction that’s very influenced by history and mythology and “The Dragonriders of Pern” series which is at least as sci-Fi as “Star Wars” was but, fantasy as a genre, has always been kind of limited by its influence and that influence in modern times has been one thing. BAAM!! The Modern-Fantasy Genre was heavily inspired by the works of Mr. Tolkien and Mr. Tolkien was heavily inspired by European languages in history (also the western world… … we just like Europe). So as a result fantasy is very rooted in European Folklore in history. Movies like Princess Mononoke, for instance, which incorporate lots of Japanese mythology, yes But they don’t define the genre to western folks the same way something familiar feeling like “Dragon Heart” or “Willow” might. Fantasy is the realm of magical expansions of things that are already familiar in the western collective unconscious: castles, kings dragons, fairies, magic, Old Beard guys and pointy hats Fantasy is folkloric, and yeah, you can just pull stuff out of your ass and call it fantasy and I guess that would be true but it’s certainly not what comes to mind when people think of Genre. Marketing is a very important component. Especially when it comes to film. As a result, there’s not a lot of wiggle room for new ideas. In films, fantasy has been the realm of the rehash of archetypes. Sci-Fi on the other hand… while Sci-Fi has had plenty of dumb and pulpy shit, it’s also had plenty of opportunity to produce culture changing challenging cinematic master works like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Blade Runner. Dun… wait. Oh also Sci-Fi has Star Wars. But wait, wait, you say Star Wars is science-fantasy. It got the Force It’s not really science fiction and I might agree, but think again of Joanne and Cletus. So what did fantasy have? What were the great fantasy films? Dragon Heart? Labyrinth? Dragon Slayer? There was a bit of a fantasy crazyness in the 80’s, fueled in part by the renaissance of the works of Tolkien and subsequent underground rise of Dungeons and Dragons, but it stayed pretty much underground. Fantasy up to this point had been relegated to something of a low art… ghetto. At best, fantasy films were cult classics. You had a couple of failed attempts at big blockbusters, no serious successes. At the end of the day these suckers just didn’t make much money. Critics despise them and not a lot of people saw them. Fantasy was a niche market and even if Lord of The Rings was one of the best-selling books of all time, that didn’t necessarily mean that the public “Joanne and Cletus” wanted to see a movie based on it Enter this guy And thus begins one of the most baffling film careers in Hollywood history “Party is over” Peter Jackson took a sort of Sam Raimi trajectory, as he started in the realm of extremely low budget horror films This man would go on to produce the most Oscar-winning film of all time. You can definitely see this, shall we say, preoccupation and some of the fight scenes in Lord of The Rings The Peter Jackson Hoover all throughout the 80s and early 90s was gross out and goofy Then one day Pete it’s all light up: 1 AM “I’m gonna do serious art film!!” Heavenly Creatures was not only a critical darling, it also netted a Oscar nomination for best screenplay Started his career in earnest in Hollywood and also this… lady… ah I forget her name. It also got him the attention of Miramax, who were the American distributors of the film and at the Time were helmed by Harvey Weinstein who, for Pete, negotiated with the producer who had held the film rights to Lord of The Rings since the 70s. So Pete and his partner, Fran, presented to Miramax a two film version of Lord of the Rings, which was budgeted at 75 million. But after a bunch more revisions, some, you know, number crunching, they realized that the movies were really probably realistically going to easily cost twice that for both of them. So Miramax was like “Make one movie” So for contract reasons, Pete had about four weeks to shop this sucker around Hollywood to find a studio that would actually let them make the two movie pitch that they made Eventually they landed at New Line, where Pete had a friend there named Mark Ordesky. And Ordesky was very interested in the presentation, and he took the pitch on one condition that: the two films be made into three The Lord of the Rings is a big-ass-sprawling-heavily detailed- many characters-often entering high fantasy epic. It is the story of a little hobbit named Frodo Baggins and his hundreds of billions of friends who all fight in a war over a ring of power which is… powerful and dangerous in some manner. Frodo also Falls down a lot: Also despite the fact that it is a high fantasy epic, it’s also the story of the everyman. It works more naturally here due to the setup. So often it’s hard to get the everyman into the protagonists slot because what business does everyman having the doings of war and shit? OH, the great lengths some books and movies go to to get the coded everyman into that protagonists slot! So often you find that they are the products of some predetermined destined Messianic prophecy or whatever Someone barges in and tells them they’ve been Jesus the whole time…: “You’re a wizard, Harry” Or sometimes it’s just idiotic: “The coordinates to the cubes location on Earth were imprinted on his glasses” But the setup of the Ring works very naturally for Frodo. “I’m giving it to you” “DON’T tempt me, Frodo!” I get the ring, I could become this: or this: You? Worst case scenario? This Because you do not matter and you have no power. So because of the powerful corrupting nature of this ring, only a non powerful unimportant person can carry it. But of course, as in any adaptation, they added a bunch of crap and they cut a much crap out. So let’s get this Tom Bombadil thing out of the way So the hobbits are running for their lives, escaping the Shire, fleeing and they meet this weirdo in the woods and the plot just… stops… and they hang out and… he’s like a big lipped alligator guy. And that it happens, and then the hobbits leave and it’s never brought up again (okay, yes, I know Gandalf brings him up at the council but only to mention how he’s completely useless to their endeavor) I feel like Bombadil made more sense in an earlier draft, where the adventures were more episodic, like in the Hobbit and then Tolkien was just so enamored with the character he kept him in anyway. SERIOUSLY, Tom Bombadil sucks He is just a tension destroying element; I mean, he feels out of place even in the book; I mean, for the most part, whenever a character comes into the book they like, payoff later or pop back up at some point but not this guy. Nope But besides that and the scouring and the Shire, which happens at the end of the third book, they didn’t cut out a whole lot Although there is one biggie that I remember people getting their panties in a real twist about and that is Arwen, Warrior Princess “If you want him come and claim him” Which, well… Originally Arwen and Éowyn gonna be kind of mushed together into one character, when it was just one movie, and then when it got expanded into three they kind of kept the Arwen Warrior Princess angle anyway… Sort of You see, it’s most pronounced when we first see Arwen and she replaces Glorfindel which yeah, why not? You know only action thing she does in all three movies, but then she pretty quickly recedes into her original role in the book Passive Elf Lady, where all I do is sit and look pretty and wait for my man and carry with me the wisdom of the ages You can see some scissor marks when it comes to Arwen’s development They did film a bunch of the Arwen Warrior Princess stuff and after her big action scene she immediately retreats back into delicate ladyship and stays there for the rest of the three movies With the Elves… who are a touch… racist… “It is in a men we must place our hope.” “Man? Man are weak”, Hate those guys. “There’s one chump after my daughter? Can’t get rid of this guy” Looks like it’s time for a FORCED PEEJ CONFLICT!! Not enough there in the source material?? Jam that conflict right in, may or may not feel incredibly forced and contrived, but hey, it’s a conflict Aragorn! In the book he’s not very interesting. I mean in the book he’s ready to step it up and be the hero king when the time comes. He carries around the broken sword with him cuz’ SYMBOLISM doesn’t have very much in the way of Internal conflict. [I] mean he does sometimes second-guess himself during the quest but he doesn’t have that huge internal dilemma about whether he’s even worthy to begin with so Let’s add one “The same blood flows in my veins.” “The same weakness.” I guess if you’ve got Elrond raising you your whole life, bearing down on you about how weak he thinks you are, Then yeah? Maybe you develop a bit of a complex. “She stays because she still has hope -” “She stays for you.” “She belongs with her people.” Do you understand you are not as good as me? And also they added a bunch of crap with Aragorn and Arwen but we’ll get into that one next time. So not only does Elrond not believe in Aragorn and men in general, Aragorn doesn’t believe in himself. ‘You will face the same evil.” “And you will defeat it.” ‘Cuz men are prone to weakness and greed, and so Aragorn Subplot is basically a three movie long journey where he finds his confidence and overcomes his great-great-great-great-times-like-20-great grandfather’s man-weakness. Conflict! On the production end of things, Viggo Mortensen wasn’t cast as Aragorn until a couple of days after shooting started. Aragorn was originally gonna be played by Stuart Townsend as in (Incoherent vocalizing) Dodged that bullet. But for the most part, all three films are pretty impeccably cast so I continue to kind of be bewildered by the casting of Hugo Weaving as Ageless Elf Lord Elrond. Oh, he’s a fine actor but Compared to the other delicately featured elves, the fig wits, the “Legoli”, the Arwens, rough, hard-edged, crankypants, craggy Hugo Weaving? He’s a touch out of place, and you know who was rumoured to want to play Elrond and they didn’t cast him? “Voodoo.” “Who do?” “You do!” “Do what?” “Remind me of the babe!” And you didn’t cast him? What? (Speaking Elvish) On the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Kate Blanchett as Galadriel and here, they didn’t so much add a conflict as put the one that was already there on steroids “In place of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen!” He also made her a little creepy – where in the book everyone adores her, here, we get some setup. “One who has seen the eye!” I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to freak you out! “Stronger than the foundations of the earth!” Frodo’s reaction here is priceless. Okay, geez, I – uh – never mind! Honestly most of the goofy shit that feels kind of out of place in Fellowship was from the book and then roided-up for the movie “I’m not hurt.” “You should be dead.” Wait, yeah? Magic chainmail or nobody, how did you survive that? And how do you get anywhere falling down as much as you do? Did you just make Boromir fall down too? Speaking of Boromir, “It is a gift.” I don’t get the impression that Tolken much liked Boromir as a character. In the book, like Aragorn, he’s not terribly interesting, but he’s also kind of a one-note douche-nozzle. Yeah, he gets redeemed before he dies, sure, but his purpose was more or less a cautionary “Ah, see what happens and you get all power-hungry?” You get orked Shorthand of film language notwithstanding, movie Boromir is more dynamic and with very little change from the book really They added a bit about how he’s worried about his father’s rule, and how he doesn’t want Aragorn to be king “Gondor has no king!” “Gondor needs no king.” And then we find out he’s really just worried for his people, and he gets some bonding moments with the hobbits that aren’t contrived or ham-fisted. And then in the end he comes around to Aragorn, and this death scene man “Our people.” “Our people.” Honestly, this, to me is why Fellowship feels like the best movie. The ending has the best build-up, the most sincere payoff, and it doesn’t drag. Okay, okay, this drags a little Okay, it drags a lot, but the bit with Boromir doesn’t! “My king.” But my big takeaway from Fellowship is that it’s a study in successful adaptation. I know they moved a lot of lines and scenes around, they cut shit out here, added it there, but ultimately it was to the benefit for the piece as a whole. The filmmakers even found ways to sneak chapter titles into dialogue. “Shortcut to what?” “Mushrooms!” “Shadow and flame.” “Riddles in the dark.” This film, more than the other two, does stay surprisingly close to the source material Hell, a lot of the stuff that feels like goofy shit they added just for the sake of action were actually in the book and, more importantly, drove the plot forward. Ahem. So back to the idea that fantasy has historically been kind of backwards-looking, history-oriented, often even a little self-indulgent, It doesn’t mean to say that it couldn’t be done well. It just hadn’t been by that point. Or at the very least it had not been commercially successful. And it’s kind of easy to see why it is hard to be genuinely, emotionally sincere about something that’s just so Out there. Like the Balrog scene, for instance; even the dialogue is pretty much directly from the book, and this could be so easily so goofy with dialogue like this: “I am the servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor.” “The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn!” But this is Sir Ian we’re talking about. Sir Ian’s like, “go hard or go home.” If we were to draw a graph of my process of my method, it’d be something like this: Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian, action, [???] YOU SHALL NOT PASS! Cut. Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian So the fact that these films exist at all were a colliding of stars that weren’t terribly likely – – that they’d be made with these people who, for the most part, had good instincts adapting this material for a modern audience, that the studio allowed them the freedom to make the film that they more or less wanted, and that they were allowed to make three movies at all. When you look at the way things are today, it’s kind of ironic to think that they had to fight to get three. But also the fact that these movies came out in the climate that they did. Fellowship of the Ring came out not four months after 9/11, we had just invaded Afghanistan, Iraq was right around the corner, the world was changing, and suddenly the High Epic simplistic world of Tolkien’s emotional sincerity didn’t seem so unpalatable anymore We wanted that escapism to go to the world of good versus evil. Where friends are truly good friends who truly love each other, and the bad guys are genetically engineered for evil and ugly so we don’t feel bad when they die and you don’t have to be ashamed of your hairy feet… It is Escapism, but it’s high Escapism. And while it is difficult, incredibly difficult, to do that, well or credibly, as we found out, there was a place for that. With Frodo, on the ground, ♪ Frodo of the nine fingers and the Ring of Doom ♪

You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes


  1. on the note of hugo weaving wasn't a good choice. I call bullshit. The Man is a half human half elf who chose to live as an elf while his twin brother lived as a man and started the royal family of the of numenor. It makes sense that he is a bit different to the other elves because he IS very different to the other elves.

  2. I like Tom Bombadil… He's super mysterious and especially his wife. She's like the representation of Spring or Nature

  3. The insertion of the aragon conflict shows Jacksons accident genius… It turned the whole story focus around from boring as f# Frodo/ Sam/ f#ing Gollum to Aragorn and his bride- kind of a tribute to Beren and his woman. In my opinion Gollum ruined the 2nd and 3rd movie… He should have been cut out!!!!

  4. Of the three LotR films, I thought Fellowship was the best, but even it didn’t have Tolkien’s glorious use of language. But then, I guess they couldn’t make it 20 hours long……

  5. Tom does not suck. His chapters aren't even that long. It doesn't need to be super serious and manly all the time. I hate when people complain about harmless things.

  6. I'm surprised you didn't contrast PJ's version to Bakshi's version…

    I didn't watch PJ's version until it was done precisely because I saw the Bakshi/Rankin-Bass fiasco…

  7. First: Tom Bombadil was a perfect angel, and probably my favorite part of The Fellowship of the Ring.

    Second: He DID come back/pay off. He saved the hobbits from the undead in the Barrows and guided them most of the way to Bree.

    In conclusion, his boots were yellow.

  8. This is my most favourite and by far, in my opinion, the best movie of *all time*.
    Seeing you nit-pick it really hurts. But I do love your Channel.

  9. Ok, the last post was over a year ago, on a post that was posted over seven years ago, on a post of a woman that doesn't read comments.
    But, no Tom (god damn) Bombadil was important. He proved that everything was relative. No matter how big of a deal it might seem right now, there was a time before it and there will be a time after it. And, just maybe the most important thing isn't the problems of the world but the ones you love.

  10. Ah yes the problem of Elrond: he's a macguffin for Aragorn's "conflict". Can't have a man being weak without someone pointing that out, but it's still a weird choice. Of anyone, Elrond should know about the strengths and weaknesses of men because he was one and his brother is literally Aragorn's distant progenitor. Granted, he has a certain fatalism about it all, because he's able to see the future (like Galadriel who also has tricky character issues, just like the books), but it's supposed to be tempered by hope (which we only see in the extended cut). The decision to treat his character this way has some unavoidable knock-on effects on other characters like Arwen and the less said about the reprise in The Hobbit, the better.

  11. I don't care about people's criticisms, when I saw the first movie in the theater I was impressed. I remember seeing the village farm and thinking real people had to design and build that. It was awesome and a treatment of LOTR that I was satisfied with.

  12. logic: i dont remember that but im pretty sure it happened. therefore it is fact. movies: something good something bad something good everyone lives happily ever after the end.

  13. Say western fantasy . There are bigger folklores in China and India . So plenty of fantasy is there.

  14. The gladerial ring scene in the animated movie. She basically danced and sang that lightly and gently handed the ring back to Frodo. She smiles"I still remain Gladerial and head onto the west."

    That scene shows a sympathetic gladeril unable to help.

  15. I come for the analysis of LotR but I stay for the Frodo Falls Down montage set to Spanish Flea.

  16. I would have like to have seen Excalibur show up in the list with Willow and Dragon Heart etc. I adore these essays; the humor and wit—I feel smarter having watched them.

  17. I'm German an generally I watch movies in their original language. But for everyone of you who speaks a bit German: it is just plain better. Firstly the dubbing is excellent, often better than the original, secondly all the European folklore names just sound better in German. They were made for this language.

    Maybe there is an even better language for Herr der Ringe, but German is definetly better than English.

  18. You could say that Hugo Weaving is an acceptable cast choice for Elrond because he's actually a Half-Elf… So it's ok if he looks a bit rougher? maybe? 😛

  19. Look I know its blasphemy but Bowie would not have been right for Elrond (dw guys I have the lynch ready just waiting for the mob)

  20. Tolkein's work on the Silmarillion was heavily influenced by the Finnish epic the Kalevala ( and IIRC Quenya is based on Finnish.

  21. love your shit, was expecting you to break my heart ( as a huge LOTR dude, born and raised on my own) The randomness of Tom is the whole point of him I always felt

  22. The distinction between Fantasy and Science Fiction is the stuff of Clarke's Lie: Sufficiently advanced technology is distinguishable from magic. It is a matter of style, or of approach. You might argue that the dark Wizard is the same character as the Mad Scientist, or that SF magic is dressed up in blinking lights, bells, whistles, but still essentially magic. That is true, but Lucas called Star Wars "the most epic Space Fantasy ever," but not SF, in spite of his use of SF tropes and cliches, which he stole from Dune, Foundation, etc. On the other hand, Roddenberry called Star Trek Science Fiction. Asimov taught Biology, Tolkien taught English Lit. There are 3 differences between technology and magic:
    1. Magic is old, the more ancient, the better, the newest tech is the best (actually not always, but that's the assumption)
    2. The more advanced the tech, the more people can use it, fifties' computers for example, required 5 experts to operate, a century later, babies will use computers before they can talk. Advanced magic can only be used by old wizards, priests & the Chosen One.
    3. Magic works on religious principles, is associated with religious paraphenalia, candles, robes, gods, monsters, holy water. Technology works on scientific principles, it does not matter if you have faith or not, is associated with scientific instruments, guages, meters, scopes, probes.

  23. Love the video. I think the lord of the rings deserves much more than being labeled as mere escapism, though.

  24. way late to the party- Elrond was a Half Elf. So much so that he is called "Elrond Half-Elven". He was the son of 2 half-elven parents, no less. Also, he was like- 6,000 years old (I looked at his wiki). So Hugo ain't a bad pick. Opinions.

  25. I’m 1:04 in and based on the tone of voice and how many times you’ve rolled your eyes, I feel comfortable tapping out, Because I have little interest in spending twenty minutes watching you slowly dissect the shit you’re about to take on a movie you clearly don’t want to talk about.

  26. 2:03 agreed! I'm always puzzled on why on earth would they lump up the fantasy genre along with the sci-fi genre?

    Those two genres are completely different from one another. I usually don't get this shit! 😛

  27. I'll be honest, I'm kind of sick of people breathing europeans for writing fantasy based in european history.
    That it usually what happens for everyone, they do the same in asia, the fact most of us live in a mainly european culture isn't really something to be annoyed about.

    Hugo is a half elf after all, so it only makes sense that he isn't quite as elf looking as all the other elves.

  28. Also, I respectfully disagree on the Tom Bombadil point. I think whether he sucks or not is purely subjective. I think that, along with all the other (frankly unnecessary) detail Tolkien adds to the book, it enriches the lore of the world he was trying to create, a world that had a purpose outside the specific characters being helpful to the plot of the book. It's much more in the theme of the Hobbit, like with Beorn saving the dwarves from the orcs. Anyhow, the story grinds to a halt right at the beginning where it takes a decade for Frodo to even leave the Shire and Gandalf to make up his mind. The time between when Bilbo and he leaves the Shire is ridiculous. Also there are extended periods through out the books where nothing much happens (like when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are tracking down Pippin and Merry, which again does not directly further the plot in any way, other than to get them from A to B).

  29. Maybe Hugo Weaving was cast because Elrond is a half elf – he’s less fair than the other elves because he’s half human. It makes the disdain for humans all the more interesting.

  30. "Except for you. That guy."
    Mmmm, Galadriel and Elrond were alive when Sauron was vanquished at the end of the Second Age. But Gandalf and Saroumane were not, they arrived in Middle-Earth during the Third Age ^^

    In fact they arrived around 1500 years after the first fall of Sauron XD

  31. Tom Bombadil is the reason I stopped reading the book in middle school. I hated him so much I put the book down and never picked it back up.

  32. Tom Bombadil is what made me give up on the book, I swear I just wanted Frodo to get to the Prancing pony already but no, Tolken had to add this nothing of a character for some reason

  33. I so agree with you, that this one's the best and about Elrond. So happy, that someone brought him up, I've been always thinking about that (also about Boromir, who doesn't even remotely look like the guy described in the book – Faramir neither).
    But actually I have a possible solution for the Elrond played by Hugo Weaving conondrum: the fact that he's not fully an Elf. He had to choose to be one. It might be just a coincidence, but I can really imagine that Peter Jackson actually thought this trough. Or strange casting choice. Yeah, that happens.

  34. Sometimes when you look at older fantasy and science fiction, there is less of genre walls. It's people who look from sword and planet Barsoom to lion Jesus Narnia to the circle around Lovecraft to puritan hero Solomon Kane and it gets harder and harder to decide what belongs where. Putting it all down into "fantastic literature" is easier than sprawling out into ever growing genre definitions.

  35. Favorite comment:
    I get the Ring, I could become this (Sauron) or this (balrog). You, worst case scenario, this (Gollum). Cracked me up. 😛 🙂

  36. Frodo falls down etc etc because he's not actually the hero. Before he left the Shire he dreamed of being a hero like Bilbo (who wasn't a traditional hero either) and while on the quest he tried his best to be a hero, but couldn't have made it anywhere without his companions and their sacrifices. Tolkien didn't intend him as a hero (or an antihero), just as a decent person who in the end has even his decency stripped off him but is saved in the last minute by providence.

  37. There is one quite successful fantasy film of the 80s you overlooked, probably because it often gets stuck in the wrong genre, and that would be Conan the Barbarian. Since there was a preexisting peplum/swords and sandals genre, mostly made up of Italian films, Conan often gets lumped in with it, or with adventure films, but if you look at Conan on its own, it definitely has many elements which would push it into the fantasy realm

  38. Hugo Weaving >>>>> David Bowie, they also didn't cast him because he was known as his whacky role in Labyrinth and felt that it would ad unwanted comedy to their rather serious approach to the books.

  39. I do think Galadriel is fearsome in the book. The power of Galadriel's mirror is amoral. It shows both good and evil, truth and possible falsehoods, and yet she wields it and encourages Frodo to look, even knowing he is likely to see terrifying things. Also, she struggles directly with the Eye of Sauron. Your "everybody loves her" comment is a little off. Everyone is in awe of her.

  40. This is hard to watch, simply because your appreciation of the depth of Tolkien's writing is as deep as a valley girl singer in a mall. To completely disregard Bombadil and the incredibly odd, yet intensely powerful (he did hold the ring and wasnt affected by it in the slightest, no one in Middle Earth or even Arda can say that) enigma he was, was analogous to a drop judgement our mall chick directs to the food fair table cleanup minimum wager. I will agree with you he didnt belong in the movie, but for the real reason PJ dropped him … he doesnt advance the story, and exactly who and what he is, was purposely left blank by Tolkien. Adding him to the film would be confusing.
    From that point on I just became more and more annoyed at your flippant approach to characters and the adaptation.
    This is not a butt hurt response from a self described Middle Earth scholar, but a critique of simply a poor review … thing. I'm out.

  41. Yeah, bookstores ended up smooshing Science Fiction and Fantasy together because there just got to be far too many works that blurred the lines or just outright combined the two. Is Shadowrun with its orcs and elves in a dystopian cyberpunk future Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Warhamer 40k ditto? etc. In the end it was such a mess it was just easier to combine the two.

    LotR is pure fantasy genre because it defined the fantasy genre. The further we've diversified from there, the harder things got to categorise.

  42. It's NOT BECAUSE HE HAS NO POWER!!?What a fundamental misreading of the story… Frodo is less likely (not immune) because he is good, innocent. As the films go on his naivety goes away until the ring finally and tragically DOES corrupt him. (Mount Doom scene) this is metaphorical of the struggles of war and the struggle to be good in times of tremendous hardship. I think a fundamental nihilism lies at the base of your reviews, you sound like you're sick of everything. Review a 10/10 for you un-sarcastically. I'd love to see that… You're a really clever reviewer, but have you lost your love of stories? They save people in such fundamental ways I just feel like your eye rolling skepticism of anything that appears good is unwarranted. We're all blind in various ways, me included, but I think you can't see the potential for TRUE GOOD to exist. It's something we need to do, not something inherent about us though. Still interesting to watch your videos! All the best 🙂

  43. "tells them they were Jesus the whole time" – it's like, yes! It's not a gift, it's a call to your inner potential. If you CAN be that good, then you SHOULD. Thats a heavy load to bear, but it's fundamental to the human story. You only hand wave that off as dumb while watching a movie if you're unwilling to accept that responsibility in your own heart… Also I reckon the Hobbit s being the characters who can carry that burden in lotr is why they're referred to like children. Children have the highest POTENTIAL for good, as they are least corrupted. But they're not MORE good inherently… Frodo is a christ like figure in a way, but he falls just short of the ideal (as we all do), but it never stopped him trying! That's an incredible lesson

  44. Alrighty, here's what I got. Frodo has some kind of mythical inner-ear infection that Gollum contracts instantly as he bites off Frodo's finger thus causing Gollum to fall backwards and unintentionally save the world. It's Frodo's falling that is the real hero.

  45. you do not consider that the opening words may be penned in a book, left behind as she left for the Shining Lands, and read by some human-descended critter years/decades/centuries later? 🙂

  46. Star Wars is not a science fantasy because it has The Force, it is science fantasy because it doesn't explore (nor care about) its technology and its philosophical, practical or moral implication. Instead, it uses its technology as a hollow prop for a fairytale story.

  47. I think you've missed a massive factor: the score. If it wasn't for the music I don't think these movies would have resonated anywhere near as well as they did, it's almost like the score is telling the story and everything else is just for added detail. It especially helps in avoiding the goofy scenes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *