How Lord of the Rings Changed | Book vs. Film

Apr 2, 2021
146 759 Views

Go to to get 50% off your first three months! Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video!
How did The Lord of The Rings changed when Peter Jackson brought it to the screen? Let's take a look!
The Lord of the Rings books were once called “unfilmable.” So how did they manage to become one of the most successful trilogies of the past twenty years? Let’s find out in this new episode of Book vs. Film: American Psycho.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ►
Support us on Patreon! ►
Check out our Merch Store! ►
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Fight Club: How Tyler Durden Changed | Book vs Film ►
The Banality of American Psycho | Book vs Film ►
Why Courage the Cowardly Dog Haunts Your Dreams ►
00:00 - Intro
01:48 - Similarities
03:09 - Difference #1: End of the World
07:50 - Difference #2: The Characters
12:45 - Difference #3: Religion
Written by Dean Varga
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Motion Graphics by Riley A
Editing by Andrew Nishimura
Produced by Evan Yee
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#lotr #lordoftherings #wisecrack
© 2021 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

  • 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.

    David HummelDavid Hummel3 hours ago
  • Interesting video, i definitely prefer the books. Why not test your knowledge with our expert quiz?

    Quiz FixQuiz Fix11 hours ago
  • Well, given that his drinking buddies were like minded academics, who formed a club called The Inklings (referencing the, “ink,” with which they all made their livings) he probably was a huge, “hit at the pub.” 😉

    Ash RoskellAsh Roskell22 hours ago
  • I respectfully disagree with your view about the Christ archetypes in the movies. For me, they don't seem to symbolize a more secular Middle-Earth. After all, even in the books the monotheism of the characters' religion doesn't have a big exposition. They are more close spiritually to the Vala (who are no gods) than to Iluvatar himself. But actually, he is a present entity, guiding the characters all the way. And the thing is that, the three "Jesus-like" characters are not "sinless messiahs" in the book, in the same sense that Jesus is, though they surely are archetypes. So, their failures in the movies don't change their inherent nature, but just reinforce it. The main point of Frodo claiming the ring is that he carries the evilness of Middle-Earth with him, and sacrifices himself to the salvation of all, but he cannot destroy the ring BECAUSE he is not Christ, he is not God, he is not Iluvatar. Middle-Earth tries to be a hipotetically old past, and in this sense, our world is the same as theirs, and their time is a time prior to the revelation of God in the Old Testament, and of He Himself coming to die for our sins in the New Testament (of course, in the Christianity worldview that Tolkien believed). So, Tolkien never intended to represent Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo as perfect beings to do Christ work, but fallible characters that became responsibles for the attributions of Christ when He had not come yet. Just because of that, they are three to do the same job that only one Christ managed to do alone. And even so, they only managed to accomplish it by the secret guidance of Iluvatar, confirmed in the Tolkien's letters. It's because of His providence that even when Frodo claimed the ring in Mount Doom, the flame of Goodness (like the Holy Spirit) in Frodo convinced him to let Gollum remain alive and it caused the fallen creature to be an instrument of the will of Iluvatar. In the same sense, it is only through the choice of Gandalf to remain faithful to his duties of an obedient angelic creature in Middle-Earth, in full obedience to Iluvatar (differing from the other Istari), that he is ressurrected (and not by the own power of Gandalf). And it's through the honest heart and desire to be good, and hate for the evilness present in men's hearts (and in his own heart), that Aragorn is chosen to reign as a king and is blessed in his battles (and even if he sinned, like King David did, he would repent because of his honest heart). The failures of the three characters, more apparent in the movies, only help to exalt and praise Christianity and the figure of Christ, and not the contrary.

    Isaque Dos Reis NevesIsaque Dos Reis NevesDay ago
  • Talking about the "ancient glory" in Middle Earth what happens after the ring is destroyed is pretty sad, all the magic of the world is slowly fading away, no more elves, no more dwarfs, no ents, just the human race.

    Rich GodiRich Godi2 days ago
  • Have they read the book? Because looking at this it doesn't look like they read the book.

    dade494dade4944 days ago
  • Almost all of the character analysis fundamentally misrepresents the characters of the books. They aren’t nearly as static as you’re suggesting. Frodo undergoes immense physical and spiritual change because of the ring and Aragorn clearly undergoes a process of struggling with his destiny. Disappointing analysis with good production.

    Phillip JonesPhillip Jones4 days ago
  • Micheal is the new Jared

    Extra VictoryExtra Victory4 days ago
  • Michael: **fantastic and subtle reading of a verse from LOTR** USworlds: HEY DO U WANT DOMINOOOOOOOZZZZ?!?!!!??***

    Nick JonesNick Jones4 days ago
  • The importance of three's predates christianity. Tolken may have gotten his inspiration from that but Christianity gets its inspiration from older myths so I think the ideas in the story don't necessarily have to be perceived a being Christian even if that's where Tolken got his idea from. This video even depicts Hecules at the start and the importance of the idea of the triple deity in mythology is common in general. The three moira or the fates would be one example. So if the film is moving away from this element it is not necessarily moving away from Christianity specifically but mythology in general. I'm not completely sold on how giving each of the three a story arc is a secular concept though. While the movie is arguably less classical and a more contemporary take, thereby being more secular, by default does this really come from giving the three a less archetypical character arc. Still I don't think that making the three or trinity of LOTR characters less archetypical is a secular direction. If you're making that argument you're basically saying that movies are more secular than books because many of those things are done because things must be shown not told in movies. It's a different format and no one wants to watch Frodo just power through a journey for 10 hours with no ups and downs and character progression.

    InsanePorcupineInsanePorcupine5 days ago
  • My only complain in the movies is that Frodo is very useless, which is not what I felt when I read the books. Frodo had problems in the books, but was trying to fight back all the times, on the movies Frodo move was to shit his pants, open wide eyes and falling, just to be rescued. Also why is animated Aragorn on his undies?

    BloodManticore24BloodManticore245 days ago
  • 14:20 I don't think this necessarily negates the Triplicate Messiah archetype, like Jesus straight up didn't want to die even as a messiah and didn't know when the resurrection would happen. Jesus is also thoelogically represented as Fully man and Fully God so representing some human flaws like fear, self-doubt or lack of knowledge is part of that being fully, a man. However, Jesus theologically also never falls for temptation which Frodo does but it is possible for one to be more than one archetype and Frodo of the Old and New Testament prophets who do sin but repent quickly.

    Ikenga SpiritIkenga Spirit6 days ago
  • Young boy? Frodo was 50 during the events of the books...

    Ugly German TruthsUgly German Truths6 days ago
  • Suuuuuuch a good discussion! Thank you guys so much!

    William BurrowsWilliam Burrows7 days ago
  • The divinity of Jesus Christ is not undermined by the film characters. The book and the movie is a fantasy that affirms THE basic Christian teaching, which is, though you failed to mention it, that ETHICAL BEHAVIOR is NOT OPTIONAL for humans of good will. That is, there is no ambiguity in what is the right, spiritually redeeming behavior versus what is the wrong, spiritually (and eventually physically) destructive behavior in the movie or the book. Relativism is a Social Darwinist CON to sucker people nto "justifying" unethical behavior (i.e. "might equals right + greed is good"). The Lord of the Rings Book AND the film make it crystal clear that Sauron, Saruman and all the other murderous greedballs in the book are functional Social Darwinists unwittingly destroying themselves and everything around them for short term power and profit. Sauron is the embodiment of Wall Street + the hydrocarbon hellspawn supported MIC. IOW, we are in worse shape than Middle Earth if Sauron had gotten his ring back. 😵😱 It's the SOCIAL DARWINISM, stupid! The ideology of the Social Darwinist is indistinguishable from the despicable ideology of NAZI Germany, clearly exemplified in their brutally enforced morally bankrupt concentration camp law: “Eat your own bread, and if you can, that of your neighbor.” Social Darwinism is actually based, not on "survival of the fittest", but on fear of tomorrow, a morally bankrupt excuse for rejecting altruism and empathy and embracing a selfish greed dominated hoarding modus vivendi. "One who fears tomorrow does not offer his bread to others. But one who is willing to divide his food with a stranger has already shown himself capable of fellowship and faith, the two things from which hope is born." -- Primo Levi, author of Survival in Auschwitz Social Darwinism is the morally bankrupt world view that spawned the profit over people and planet neoliberal ideology. Neoliberal intellectuals like Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman were all Social Darwinists long before they renamed laissez-faire liberalism (that had been thoroughly discredited by the Great Depression) with the catchy title of "Neoliberalism". 🤔 Based on what celebrated social theorist and geographer David Harvey himself has written, I'm surprised that he has not reached the "It's the Social Darwinism, stupid" conclusion yet (see below): The David Harvey explains that neoliberal ideology serves the following principle: "There shall be no serious challenge to the absolute power of money to rule absolutely. And that power is to be exercised with one objective: Those possessed of money shall not only be privileged to accumulate wealth endlessly at will, but they shall have the right to inherit the earth, taking either direct or indirect dominion, not only of the land and all the resources and productive capacities that reside therein, but also assume absolute command, directly or indirectly, over the labor and creative capacities of all those others it needs. The rest of humanity shall be deemed disposable." David Harvey, “The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis,” Also, by David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Gelbert OBSERVATION: If the morally bankrupt, socially destructive ideology which backs no serious challenge to the absolute power of money to rule absolutely, while it simultaneously deems the rest of humanity disposable, is not SOCIAL DARWINISM, I don't know what is. 😠

    Anthony GelbertAnthony Gelbert7 days ago
  • Gandalf usec Keeps.

    Vitor BarretoVitor Barreto7 days ago
  • Trying really hard, but can't think of any "death and rebirth" scenario Aragorn goes through in the book. Showing one of the few scenes in the film that isn't based on any part of the book to underline this point doesn't exactly help.

    farts of doomfarts of doom7 days ago
  • Sir Ian, Sir Ian, Sir Ian....

    danrazzmatazzdanrazzmatazz7 days ago
  • Just as an aside. Does anyone else think Gollum looked too much like a cartoon character compared to the live action actors? Everyone in the world seems to think he looks incredibly realistic but to me the eyes were too big and Loony Tunes.

    Malcolm ArmstrongMalcolm Armstrong8 days ago
  • They did my bois Glorfindel and Imrahil dirty, but, well, what marvelous films they were

    Jin Gyu LeeJin Gyu Lee8 days ago
  • Wait! Where? Nevermind... LOL

    GaretO MusicGaretO Music8 days ago
  • You could read Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo as Christ-figures, but I think that might be reading a bit too far into it. Tolkien and Lewis did not write the same types of books, and equating that trio to a Christ-like Aslan seems a bit off (especially since it’s a lot more commom to talk about Christ as «just» King and Priest as in Hebrews). To me at least, they seem like flawed people that still could serve God, similiar to Jonah and David, instead of stand-ins for Christ himself. But I’m not Catholic, so I might be wrong here.

    GryynGloGryynGlo8 days ago
  • 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!

    Scott MarkusScott Markus8 days ago
  • Another big difference is the pace of the journey. The movie seems like everything happens within a few weeks, in the books you understand more of the epic JOURNEY this is. Things took time, and they spent more time with each person they encountered.

    asl36 asl36asl36 asl368 days ago
  • Now compare the books to the soviet one

    Lucas de Mello SampaioLucas de Mello Sampaio8 days ago
  • World building over narrative? LOTR was the OG Dark Souls

    Moravia90sMoravia90s8 days ago
  • 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.

    Jonathan RogersJonathan Rogers8 days ago
  • 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 :)

    ruukaozruukaoz8 days ago
  • For once, the movies are better than the books they're based on!

    Awesome MattAwesome Matt9 days ago
  • It's been a long time but I'm pretty sure in silmarillion it's shown that Gandalf is not 100%certain of anything he is full of doubt

    watwatwatwatwatwat9 days ago
  • I remember reading the prologue to the first book where Tolkien says he dislikes symbolism and I was like “dude, sir, have you read your own books?”

    Andandopalteatro conlospiesAndandopalteatro conlospies9 days ago
  • I don't agree with the first difference. All the Elrond scenes fulfill the same purpose to those book scenes he mentioned. I mean sure there's a difference and that theme about a world losing it's magic has a different importance but it's still there.

    Juan Pablo VillarroelJuan Pablo Villarroel9 days ago
  • Lotr movies > Lotr Books Hobit movies < Hobbit Book

    pticu1pticu19 days ago
  • Aragon might want to be king in the books, but his challenge is to actually unite his people and you know, have a kingdom to rule. Idk, let’s agree to disagree.

    Nicole AlmeidaNicole Almeida9 days ago
  • Did I miss something?? What happened to the other host of wisecrack? Jared I think was his name

    Kyle SantosKyle Santos9 days ago
  • Young boy? Frodo was 50-years-old. Go make videos about something you actually care about.

    CalumCalum9 days ago
  • someones mald as hell

    StankFaceStankFace9 days ago
  • You should do adaptation next

    Kieran AugustKieran August9 days ago
  • There's a lot of walking in the book. ALOT of WALKING!!!

    Colton RuscheinskyColton Ruscheinsky10 days ago
  • 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.

    Bradley AthertonBradley Atherton10 days ago
  • Kinda surprised the video didn't touch on the biggest change, the Hobbits returning home after the journey

    57wookie57wookie10 days ago
  • Extended cuts: the only way to watch Lord of the Rings

    Ryan BarclayRyan Barclay10 days ago
  • 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.

    Gretchen SauerGretchen Sauer10 days ago
  • Frodo is 50... I wouldn't call him a young boy

  • 1:00 Eww... baldy baldy baldo's

    J.R. BoyettJ.R. Boyett10 days ago
  • Bit late, but gotta say that i prefer that kind of "confident" Michael. The "self-pity" Michael is so cringe...dude got to boast that damn phd and 3 million subs all over us, friggin over achiever.

    Igor MascarenhasIgor Mascarenhas10 days ago
  • Reading these books, those songs are so dense. I had forgotten how important they are to the story. Might be due for a reread....

    Devin PowersDevin Powers10 days ago
  • All I heard was great reasons that the movies are better than the book. And he's right. I love fantasy. Specially fantasy with good world building. But i can't stand Tolkien's writing. I know that is sacrilegious within the fantasy world. But he is a terrible writer. He is the king of the run-on sentences. I'd dare to say Jackson's Hobbit movies are better than the book too. It's way more interesting. He does a better job of fleshing out the dwarves. And if you think they aren't fleshed out that well in the movie, you're right. That just shows how little is done to differentiate them in the book.

    DeadpoolAndFriendsDeadpoolAndFriends10 days ago
  • Great video. My two cents on the hot take that Jackson's film refutes the existence of Christ: This can still be reconciled as one common theme in the Christian Bible is the inadequacy of humanity compared to the divine. While human Biblical figures like David can embody one of Christ's three offices (kingship in David's case), the Bible is clear in emphasizing how King David falls short of the divine ideal: David famously sent Uriah to his death and had a relationship with his wife.

    Victor BVictor B10 days ago
  • Aragorn earns the crown in the film's rather than just collecting it in the books? Stunning idea! I'm definitely stunned.

    alan popealan pope10 days ago
  • 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.

    Bee WhistlerBee Whistler10 days ago
  • There are a lot of things in the movies that don't really make sense, and that's the result of altering characters and events in such a prefectly crafted book. However, those are nitpicks I can overlook because The Lord of The Rings trilogy still has an immensly powerful narrative altogether. A lot of people rip on Peter Jackson's The Hobbit for being an inferior trilogy. And while that's absolutely true, I also think most of its flaws were already present in The Lord of The Rings. It's just that by adapting a small book into a trilogy it didn't have such a strong narrative to distract us from its flaws.

    Sandro Algra BarradasSandro Algra Barradas10 days ago
  • Maybe it's just me, but Aragorn came off as a huge entitled prick in the books as opposed to the ideal king that Tolkien intended him to be. The personality change of the movie made him FAR more relatable as a person and far more desirable as an ideal ruler. I also think that it's hilarious that Frodo unknowingly sat in his insanely decadent home swimming in wealth with the One Ring giving no fucks for nearly 20 years before finally setting off. (And he also came off as a rich prick to me in the novel.) Keep in mind, I read the books AFTER watching the films. And boy, it was a boring slog of songs, food and historical exposition. Maybe our concept of literature and the way it was written has changed too drastically from Tolkien's ivy league educated 1930's sentimentality, or maybe it's just my upbringing and perspective of his work, but I almost can't fathom how this was thought of highly enough for someone to propose it (multiple times if you consider how many times it's been adapted) as a feature length film. And, on the flip side of that same token, it's also no surprise to me that it wasn't until 2001 that audiences were ready (with the help of a stellar production) to actually swallow the horse pill that was this dense world. I'm earnestly surprised it's such a beloved childhood book for so many because I earnestly can't fathom what child from my age group (I'm in my 40's), would have had the patience to sit and read this with self-imposed gusto.

    Samuel RobinsonSamuel Robinson10 days ago
  • 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.

    UnreasonableOpinionsUnreasonableOpinions10 days ago
  • This comment section is pure cancer. Does not shock me as LOTR fans are the most toxic fanbase on the internet.

    romangeneral23romangeneral2310 days ago
  • Wow, this sounds like the book would be downright boring.

    kurtreznorkurtreznor10 days ago
  • The way you put it, the live action movie is more interesting than the book.

    Keyotea MendelbarKeyotea Mendelbar11 days ago
  • 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.

    Marc HessMarc Hess11 days ago
  • Great video. +1 for Supergiant's Hades

    TheMaskedGamerTheMaskedGamer11 days ago
  • Lol baldcel paid advertising. Stay frosty boyos

    Josh RobisonJosh Robison11 days ago
  • Idk, the claim that the books' characters are predominantly archetypal is a bit of a stretch imo, there's a lot of subtle and not so subtle character development moments in the book, but I do agree with the overall claim that this was probably not Tolkien's main focus with the books as it was with the films.

    nervosnervos11 days ago
  • I'm glad they toned down most of the homoerotic frission in the two Hobbit couples for the Movies. Barely even noticed that. . . . . said no-one.

    No DiggityNo Diggity11 days ago
  • "Young boy" lol Frodo is 50! Is that the new 18 for hobbits?

    Laurel ButterworthLaurel Butterworth11 days ago
  • I don't think you've actually read the book.

    Richard CahillRichard Cahill11 days ago
  • I may as well be The Lady of the Ring with how OBSESSED with the books I am

    M.C EllenM.C Ellen11 days ago
  • Do a video on 'Messiah' the Netflix series.

    Ajil Jude SobiAjil Jude Sobi11 days ago
  • I watched the films first as a kid and read the books as an adult. I found the books to be too positive when it came to ideas of war, power and progress. The movies I felt better reflected the modern era (post-911} where the idea of victory had less meaning than before, and trust in the power structure (generally white power structure) was eroding. There was also a war weariness in the movies that I felt as an American as these characters fought an unending struggling surrounded by the ruin of more glorious past.

    Raymond TrabulsyRaymond Trabulsy11 days ago
  • Tolkien hated allegory so I don’t think the Christ thing is a thing.

    thesungodterrythesungodterry11 days ago
  • Book vs film for V for vendetta

    seagoat goddessseagoat goddess11 days ago
  • @ 8:05 more of a world-builder than a novelist.... This makes sense to me. I understand why JRR Tolkein and Eiichiro Oda are the greatest story writers of all time. Both of them are world-builders who are detail oriented, planning things out years if not decades ahead. They let the story write itself with the ending already in mind. Writers of 2 of the greatest modern day epics ever told. Cant say this for LoTR as I havent read all of it but for One Piece, I think its the greatest epic of all time.

    StoicSwordsmanStoicSwordsman11 days ago
  • You need a durag for hair growth

    AP noBluetoothBassAP noBluetoothBass11 days ago
  • It's crazy to think that Mr. Jackson actually made the story better by fleshing out the motivations of the leads. And it even took about the religious overtone bull crap. Well done, Peter. 😁

    Ivan JohnsonIvan Johnson11 days ago
  • You lost me at "agrees to destroy the Ring, does a quest, destroys the Ring" when the climax of the story - Frodo at Sammath Naur - makes it very clear that Frodo fails to destroy the Ring, which shows what a huge impact the Ring had on Frodo - both physically and mentally, and also is a reason why he would later sail to the Undying Lands. Actually, the whole part from Gollum appearing on the slopes of Mount Doom to the actual destruction of the Ring is changed quite a lot even if it doesn't look that way on first glance. While I agree that the book doesn't feature the typical character development elements of modern stories, I disagree with the idea that the characters in the books are all static. Especially the Hobbits are very much changed by their experience, even if it's not shown step by step as it is in the movies.

    LothirilLothiril11 days ago
  • 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.

    Snatcher42Snatcher4211 days ago
  • My dream is to one day direct a remake of the trilogy that compares more to the books

    Olaf ScholtensOlaf Scholtens11 days ago
  • As interesting and well thought out as this video was, I think it doesn't do the books justice. Frodo very clearly changes from the huge amount of time he spent in the outskirts of the Shire lollygagging instead of leaving as recommended, to being deeply focused and dedicated to destroying the ring to actually failing to do so and becoming an empty shell of his former self, as seen in the scouring of the shire. He is anything but stagnant.

    TaislinmaosdelaTaislinmaosdela11 days ago
  • 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.

    Funkky MonkeyFunkky Monkey11 days ago
  • I hope u do a book vs film for the wheel of time after the first season finishes airing and every season after .:) specially since lotr was a big influence for Robert Jordan.

    xyr3sxyr3s11 days ago
  • This is a cool video, but it’s wrong in a few things. First off, like others have said, the characters do have narrative arcs in the books as well. Even Merry and Pippin change throughout their journey. And the fact that Frodo changes is *essential* to him leaving to Valinor. If he had stayed the same, there would be no reason for him to leave. But more importantly, Jackson’s films do keep Tolkien’s themes of extinction and the ending of the divine in Middle Earth. The difference is that the movies are much more subtle about it than the books (which is a plus in my opinion). From King Théoden burying his own son, to the Ents lamenting the fact that they “lost” the Entwives, there is this uncomfortable sensation that the Third Age is coming to a close, and with it, the ability of the elders to pass on their cultural heritage. That’s why the Elves are leaving to Valinor, why Denethor is unable to see Faramir, the sentimental son, as his own kin and why Gimli jokes about the myth that female Dwarves simply don’t exist. Middle-Earth itself is becoming an infertile land, devoid of the magical entities that once roamed the world. Perhaps this video is referring to the theatrical cut which misses a lot of these points but the extended editions definitely have those same themes.

    M PaulsonM Paulson11 days ago
  • Why is it always Michael? He’s fucking terrible

    12canadianboy1212canadianboy1211 days ago
  • This is why The Silmarillion is the superior book. Mythical stuff happen at such a pace that makes character development unnecessary. Whereas in the Lotr books, most of the time you are just reading about the position of trees and hills with static heroes walking in between them.

    Nerd StarkNerd Stark11 days ago
  • Come on no mention of boromir?

    Brian McKeeBrian McKee11 days ago
  • Really wish they would make more LOTR movies

    Mr. Lonely 816Mr. Lonely 81611 days ago
  • “Khazad-dûm, if you’re nasty” LOL 😂

    Luis MichelLuis Michel11 days ago
  • Tolkien was a devout Christian, not catholic. Christians believe that the world is fallen and is declining into sin hence the same in middle earth.

    Andrew HagemanAndrew Hageman11 days ago
  • I'm liking this because the video was entertaining, mostly right, and I want more Tolkien content! But, there were some things that were off in my view. But I am just a small person in this wide world. And thank goodness!

    NickNick11 days ago
  • I don't know, I feel like the characters do change and have layers in the books. Maybe not the exact same way as in the movies, but they do change all the same.

    Leon MayneLeon Mayne11 days ago
  • I think over examining minor aspects of the priest, prophet, and king archetypes within the movie to make them more relatable for a modern audience, and then jumping to the very far fetched conclusion that it is a covert or even more absurdly an overt attempt to subvert Christian themes is right up Dan Brown's alley.

    MarDGarMarDGar12 days ago
  • This guy is the worst.

    David KingDavid King12 days ago
  • I don't agree that we are not shown the psychological weight of the ring in the book... My favorite example is when the ring fails to seduce Sam. He overcomes temptation by proving that he can become a badass... by being exactly the opposite of one

    Luis MartinezLuis Martinez12 days ago
  • 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

    Mi KiMi Ki12 days ago
  • I don't mind most of the changes that they made; but the one I *do* dislike is Frodo casting Sam away. That wasn't in line with his character in book or film, nor was it really in Sam's character to actually leave.

    Kaye PlagueDocKaye PlagueDoc12 days ago
  • "The multi-part exploration of a young boy's hicking journey..." Ehhmmm Frodo was 50 when he set out to Bree. Just saying 😁

    IodemIodem12 days ago
    • 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.

      Ugly German TruthsUgly German Truths6 days ago
  • One does not simply walk into mordor..

    Heckel AlexHeckel Alex12 days ago
  • What are you saying, that Frodo isn't psychologically challenged by the ring and his arc in the book is straightforward journey to destroy? It corrupts him and he fails to destroy it, and only the complete fluke of Gollum's last minute attack ensures that his failure does not ruin everything! Everyone forgets this, and in the film they tried to make it more ambiguous (which completely undermines Tolkien's point) by showing Frodo continuing to fight Gollum rather than Gollum losing his balance during his victory dance. I think it's an important thing not to forget that Frodo failed to destroy the ring because it reminds us that even ostensibly good and virtuous people can be corrupted by power, and so we should never be complacent about the potential for its abuse. So it really bothers me when people forget or gloss over this point.

    Joe HodsonJoe Hodson12 days ago
  • 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!

    John Wilkinson IVJohn Wilkinson IV12 days ago
  • I mean to be fair Tolkien tried his best to keep religion out of his depiction of Middle-earth so it could be argued that making Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf less like depictions of aspects of Jesus would have been in his interest.

    Noelvesbody JNoelvesbody J12 days ago
  • No Saruman of Many Colours = No Deal!

    MisiuloMisiulo12 days ago
  • Imo, this video kinda makes the books sound like they suck lol

    ali abdullahali abdullah12 days ago
  • While I still enjoy the books, this is one of those few and far between times where I enjoy the movies more. They are masterworks. Still blows my mind that those terrible Hobbit movies came from the same director.

    That GuyThat Guy12 days ago