I always saw the subtext of "Gondor needs no king" as "you abandoned us, so screw you we're fine on our own." I complely disagree with you point that Boromir is just power hingry. Boromir feels greatly the weight of the burden of leadership, and is looking for any kind of edge against the tide of darkness that is slowly overcoming his lands. Even while under the seduction of the ring he says "I ask only for the strength to protect my people!"
Loved watching these in Patreon when I was subscribed. Excited to see you guys upload them to UA-cam. This series of podcasts is great and I love whenever you get an excuse to talk books.
2:17:14 I don't think 17 years has passed in the movie version of the story. I think Bilbo looks older because the Ring had been giving him unnaturally long life, and now that he's been without the Ring, his old age is catching up to him unnaturally fast as a result.
It's not, because, it would actually looked stupid for Gandalf to take 17 years to figure out that that was actually the one ring. It would probably take maybe 2 months for Gandalf to reach Minas Tirith, read the papers, maybe a couple of months to find Golum and to come back to Shire to report. Give and take, it would take him maybe a year or 2 , but surely not 17 years. I was always wonder why that long in the book.. and I still don't know the answer.And Bilbo didn't have dark hair.. ut looked dark because it was in the dark
While I don't think it was incorrect for Tom Bombadill to be left out of the movie, I would like to defend his inclusion in the book. To me, it doesn't seem as much like a tangent as it is an illustration of something that Tolkien wanted to stress about his world: While there is a large, worldwide conflict going on, there are still certain people, creatures, and beings that exist apart from it. Tolkien makes sure to show that not only does the ring not affect Bombadill negatively, it doesn't affect him at all. The invisibility magic doesn't even work. It's just a useless trinket to him. Tolkien wants us to be aware that while there is a clear delineation between good and evil in the conflict, it's not necessarily clear in the wider world. Tom Bombadill could be either good or evil if he wanted to be, but he doesn't want to get involved. He just lives in his forest and does his own thing. There is a pattern of this in Tolkien's writing. In The Hobbit you have creatures like the stone giants, who are just mentioned as existing but play no part in the story itself. You have other creatures that do end up playing a part in the story, but really were just minding their own business before they got involved and would rather have not gotten involved at all. Beorc would have been happy to just stay in his house and not have dwarves visit him. The trolls and the Mirkwood spiders seem like evil creatures, but they really have no allegience and are just perils along the way. In The Lord of the Rings, you have Caradhras, a mountain who would just rather not have things crawling on him, and the Eagles, who are helpful at one point but only because they felt like being helpful that one time. The question always comes up, sometimes as a joke and sometimes not, about why they didn't just have the Eagles take the ring to Mount Doom. There is an answer in the book, and it's because they would have said no. They're not a part of this conflict. They do what they want. If they feel like helping, they will, and if they don't, they won't. The payoff to this, of course, is the Ents. They want to be neutral parties and just stay in their forest and not get involved, but it gets to a point where they can't hold out anymore. It's not as silly as in the movie where they didn't have any clue the Orcs were encroaching and basically opened their window to finally see what was going on. They were very aware of what was happening, but hadn't decided to do anything about it yet. The movies seem to want to do away with this neutral ground. Perhaps Tom Bombadill was cut only for time, but I think a greater reason is that Jackson didn't want anyone to be featured in the movie that didn't take a side. Tom Bombadill is gone, the Fellowship gets blown off of Caradhras because of Saruman, and the Ents really *would* have joined up sooner if they had actually known that something was happening. It makes the entire world very black and white, which was clearly not the original intention of Tolkien. All of this is straight off the dome, so some of it might not be fully correct, but I still think it serves to show that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill isn't just out of nowhere. Yes, he in particular is probably mainly there in order for Tolkien to tie together his earlier fairy stories to his epic story because he liked the funny leprechaun he had created years earlier, but he does more than just insert him. He serves a wider purpose, which is a testament to how good of a writer Tolkien was.
In the books Frodo was a badass. After being stabbed and chased he stops and turns towards the ring wraiths and pulls his sword out and challanges the wraiths. He is saved by Elrond and Gandalf casting a spell to force the river to flood, washing away the wraiths. So much more badass than what happens in the movie.
Thanks for this. Love your discussions, and the idea to go to 2 podcasts a week will keep me listening when a game doesn’t catch my interest. Love this kinda content, would love more podcasts about LotR and other classics you guys enjoy.
To add on the thing about oaths: In Tolkien's world, oaths are a BIG deal. There's the ghost warrior dudes Aragorn recruits who only got cursed that way because they broke an oath. There's the Oath of Feanor, which at least a few of his sons come to regret, but they *have* to keep to the oath, or.... something, we're never really sure. Point being, in Tolkien's world, you do not ever break an oath. To be an oathbreaker is to die.
Yes because for the first time we actually see why they are called the wizards. There is nothing "wizarly" seeing two people talking. And we can also see why is Saruman , at that point stronger than Gandalf.
@@VesnaLukic-h8w Ah, my dear friend, it seems that in all your haste to sound wise, you have mistaken mere spectacle for true power. A wizard’s strength does not lie in flashes of light or clashes of staff, but in the deep well of knowledge he commands. Perhaps when you have read more than the titles of books, you will grasp that wisdom, not force, is the greatest tool in any wizard's hands. Until then, I suggest you study in silence, lest you reveal more of your own lack thereof.
@@rancorprimegames Literature and movies are totally different media. One can explain many things, like strength of thoughts in writing, but, movies are visual media. One has to show the strength of a wizard in some other way than it is explain in the book. Some things that are in the book doesn't work in the film.. like Galadriel gift to Gimli for example.or the way that Saruman's and Gandalf's confrontation . It's perfect in the book but not as such in the movie.. But of, course, you have a right to your own opinion, not to like how it was shown on the screen. I like it a lot.. As you can see, I'm much more respectfull to you , then you are to me.. Knowledge, my dear, is not shown by putting other people down just because they have a different point of view . Maybe if you would just wait and think a bit what you are about to write, you would see by yourself that it's not a good thing to do. You may correct your behavior, or you may not. It's up to you. This was just one friendly advice. Lack of respect can still be corrected, if one has a will to do so.
@@rancorprimegamesYou absolutely have a right to disagree . In, my opinion, on the screen, when you see 2 people talking, you can see their motivation, their interest and their intellect. But that doesn't mean those two people are wizards. If you don't know, they can be people of any kind. Wizards have powers that were explained in the book, but you have to show those powers in some way on the screen.. you have to show it visually . Maybe that "fight" was not the right way to show that power, but it's one of the ways. What do you think was the right way? Just like it happened in the book, or some other way?
Great analysis once again! I just wanted to add that the scene where the Hobbits meet the Nazgul for the first time is almost identically directed as it was in the 1978 animation. The similarities between the two always blow my mind.
Wait last episode Mike mentioned there would be a video on the book on his other channel. I don't think I even realized he had another channel. Can you please share the link? Would love to support more content
I loved this something of note to go a long with Kingsroot or that one plant Casen was talking about. Dandelion is a real world equivalent to that we see it as a bother a nuisance, but it has many herbal and medicinal purposes people have seemed to have just forgotten.
I do miss Merry and Pippin being more involved in the early story. I really like the way Fellowship in the book begins and part of that is because of the friendship between the four Hobbits in those early chapters. For much of the beginning of the movie Merry and Pippin are just kinda gag characters rather than some of Frodo's closest friends and confidants. I don't mind alot of the other edits and omissions but that one always rubbed me the wrong way. It feels abrupt when they join. Maybe even if they were following Frodo and Sam because they were worried about them (rather than just by chance bump into them) I'd like it more and that's a small edit.
btw there are some decent fan edits of the hobbit trilogy. there's the M4 edit and the Chris Hartwell edit that first comes to mind if youre interested
Conservativism doesn't oppose change. It opposes quick change that undermines longstanding traditions because we should always be skeptical when a few people say they're smarter than the totality of past generations. Edmund Burke wrote about this. Tolkien's politics were inspired by Burke. Gondor is the living embodiment of a just kingdom according to Tolkien. The King's main responsibility is to uphold traditions for thousands of years and can't easily change them.
I think "reactionary" would be the better term for what these guys are talking about. Because as a Catholic, Tolkien absolutely supported longstanding traditions.
@jacobmonks3722 good point. Tolkien's views on certain topics clearly changed from his youth. He became more of a proponent of guided evolution despite the backlash to it in the early 1900s, a middle ground between evolutionary eugenics and young Earth creationism. But he also rejected the Second Vatican for allowing traditional Catholic traditions like Latin masses to no longer being mandatory. He expressed that harmless cultural rituals are important to preserve to keep communities together
I haven’t watched this yet but I wanted to let you know the last video revealed to me there were significant differences between the books and the movies (I always thought they were mostly the same) so I’m committed to reading the books this year. 🙏
Just found this channel, amazing analysis! I rather like that Legolas is used for crazy stunts since it was one of the few things that drove home that elves are physically stronger and more agile than humans. There are literally NO other elves in the lotr movies that we see demonstrate that difference. The other elves like Elrond, Arwen, and Galadriel are not fighters and show us the cerebral side instead. Think, without Legolas's stunts, what would even indicate to the audience that elves have different abilities? They could have been toned down, but I can see world-building value to it outside of fun.
Tolkien is most correctly identified as anti-modernist. Anti-modernism is often associated with conservatism but it’s a different animal. There were some radically progressive anti-modernists. I often wonder if Tolkien was aware of the American poet Vachel Lindsay as they would have found kindred spirits in each other despite politics.
I totally agree on the absurdity of the action in certain scenes…considering Jackson’s filmography-specifically, brain dead and bad taste-it actually fits within his body of work. I believe the absurd/whimsical humor to his action is sort of a trademark to his directorial style. Additionally, I think he is very talented at visually creating a sense of scale and setting with his shots that is maybe overlooked. Anyways…I love the channel and hearing your thoughts on these movies! Would you guys ever consider covering books too?? Keep up the great work!
Regarding the color grading-Peter Jackson made adjustments to the 4K release of fellowship to have them parody the following two films…the downside to the 4K release is the aggressive use of DNR. There are so many different versions of these movies there might not be a “perfect” edition. I dig that I have a choice as a viewer…despite the older editions being harder to come by.
In terms of the deus machina, I think it's also important to have built a trust with the audience. In LotR I often feel like I don't know something, but I can trust the answer exists. Usually when it's not done well and I have such a question I'm quite sure there is no answer and the writer just made something up.
on the topic of the color grading. the green tint was added onto the blurays of Fellowship and TT, I was not a fan off. I prefered to watch the fan made Color Restorations of FotR and TT. RotK surpirsingly doesnt have the green tint. This is referring to the extented editions
Point against Arwen giving Fodo her grace and that being the reason he's able to go into the West and she is not. At the end of RotK it's stated that Sam too will go into the West when he gets old and that it's a function of being a ring bearer.
Yep I’ve always named my main character Turin in every RPG I play cause that’s my favorite story in all fantasy, also to the beauty in sorrow conversation my brother always said just look at the human skull the mouth is always grinning but the eyes are always sad, maybe it’s simply innate in our nature
About Aragorn carring does swords/daggers: I just explained it always to myself, that Rangers got some stashes around their routes for reasons. That's nothing too special. At least in my mind.
There is definitely a line everyone has that the “fun” goes to far across. The barrel scene for example didn’t cross it for me, but I could easily see how it could for people. My biggest problem with “fun” scenes is when there is no straight man. You have to have someone acknowledge the absurd otherwise the movie loses any kind of grounding. Look at Thor love and thunder. All comedy without any hint of a straight man
The passion you guys have for this keeps me listening. I love the films, but I can't stand Tolkien's writing. 3 names for everything is a major issue for me. I never know what he is referring to because I can only remember one made up word per location and they drift in and out of each term, only correlating them once and I've long since forgotten that correlation by the time it's brought up again. I read the books after watching the films and didn't really enjoy the books all that much. It's just not my kind of writing, even though I love fantasy stories. I like the adventure in LOTR, but that's about it. A lot of the comedic changes you talked about in the films are some of the most memorable parts for me. Oh well, at least here I learn plenty that I didn't know about these stories
48.00 If you enjoy mostly fun with a smattering of great heart, i can't recommend Terry Pratchetts disc world enough. Sure it makes you laugh tons, but then he all the sudden makes poignant commentary about the world and life and loss and love. I still remember finishing his entire library is work and lamenting that there will never be more written from this genius.
One day they will analyze Silmarillion and I hope there will be a great discussion about this part: Then Manwe spoke and said:'Hearest thou, Feanor son of Finwe, the word of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?' There was long silence, but Feanor answred no word. Then Tulkas cried:'Speak O Noldo, yea or nay! But who shall deny Yavanaa? And did not the light of the Silmarils come from her work in the beginning?' But Aule the Maker said: ; Be no hasty! We ask a greater thing than thou knowest. Let him have peace yet awhile.'
As for Water top.. well, they didn't stub Hobbits in the book either.. why? I love book, but what is very very silly to me is when Frodo got stubbed , there is no way, no way in hell that he could ride the big horse (that he never did before), for six days while ringwraithes were chasing him. That was stupidest thing in the book. When I read that, for the first time I thought it was stupid, and I still think it now.. It has much more sense that he would be carried by elf who are the best riders.
Dam you Mike!! You were supposed to use a pic of yourself cosplaying as a rohirrim warrior in the thumbnail. Use a pic of Casen cosplaying as a warrior for Gondor in a future ep. Mike gives Rohan energy. Casen gives more Gondor energy.
47:00 I love your videos but this is a bad take in my opinion. Game of Thrones' tragedy events are all telegraphed far ahead of time and are all a result of character decisions, their flaws, and interactions. I personally find It's writing a breathe of fresh air for the fantasy genre where it feels as if no character has plot armor. To distill it down to overbearing tragedy for the sake of tragedy feels disingenuous.
Thank you again guys. The last lord of the rings video made me want watch them all again. Just wants to say thank you 👍🤙and i appreciate you guys
Keep taking movies seriously. Please. I’m just like you, and that’s why I LOVE your commentary.
I love how Jackson shoot action scenes. Battle n Helm's Deep and Pelenor Fields are two the best battles putt on screen.. ever.. and it's all him.
To quote another franchise released around the same time that also had Christopher Lee in it, “I’ve been looking forward to this.”
I always saw the subtext of "Gondor needs no king" as "you abandoned us, so screw you we're fine on our own."
I complely disagree with you point that Boromir is just power hingry. Boromir feels greatly the weight of the burden of leadership, and is looking for any kind of edge against the tide of darkness that is slowly overcoming his lands. Even while under the seduction of the ring he says "I ask only for the strength to protect my people!"
Loved watching these in Patreon when I was subscribed. Excited to see you guys upload them to UA-cam. This series of podcasts is great and I love whenever you get an excuse to talk books.
2:17:14 I don't think 17 years has passed in the movie version of the story. I think Bilbo looks older because the Ring had been giving him unnaturally long life, and now that he's been without the Ring, his old age is catching up to him unnaturally fast as a result.
It's not, because, it would actually looked stupid for Gandalf to take 17 years to figure out that that was actually the one ring. It would probably take maybe 2 months for Gandalf to reach Minas Tirith, read the papers, maybe a couple of months to find Golum and to come back to Shire to report. Give and take, it would take him maybe a year or 2 , but surely not 17 years. I was always wonder why that long in the book.. and I still don't know the answer.And Bilbo didn't have dark hair.. ut looked dark because it was in the dark
While I don't think it was incorrect for Tom Bombadill to be left out of the movie, I would like to defend his inclusion in the book. To me, it doesn't seem as much like a tangent as it is an illustration of something that Tolkien wanted to stress about his world: While there is a large, worldwide conflict going on, there are still certain people, creatures, and beings that exist apart from it. Tolkien makes sure to show that not only does the ring not affect Bombadill negatively, it doesn't affect him at all. The invisibility magic doesn't even work. It's just a useless trinket to him. Tolkien wants us to be aware that while there is a clear delineation between good and evil in the conflict, it's not necessarily clear in the wider world. Tom Bombadill could be either good or evil if he wanted to be, but he doesn't want to get involved. He just lives in his forest and does his own thing.
There is a pattern of this in Tolkien's writing. In The Hobbit you have creatures like the stone giants, who are just mentioned as existing but play no part in the story itself. You have other creatures that do end up playing a part in the story, but really were just minding their own business before they got involved and would rather have not gotten involved at all. Beorc would have been happy to just stay in his house and not have dwarves visit him. The trolls and the Mirkwood spiders seem like evil creatures, but they really have no allegience and are just perils along the way. In The Lord of the Rings, you have Caradhras, a mountain who would just rather not have things crawling on him, and the Eagles, who are helpful at one point but only because they felt like being helpful that one time. The question always comes up, sometimes as a joke and sometimes not, about why they didn't just have the Eagles take the ring to Mount Doom. There is an answer in the book, and it's because they would have said no. They're not a part of this conflict. They do what they want. If they feel like helping, they will, and if they don't, they won't.
The payoff to this, of course, is the Ents. They want to be neutral parties and just stay in their forest and not get involved, but it gets to a point where they can't hold out anymore. It's not as silly as in the movie where they didn't have any clue the Orcs were encroaching and basically opened their window to finally see what was going on. They were very aware of what was happening, but hadn't decided to do anything about it yet.
The movies seem to want to do away with this neutral ground. Perhaps Tom Bombadill was cut only for time, but I think a greater reason is that Jackson didn't want anyone to be featured in the movie that didn't take a side. Tom Bombadill is gone, the Fellowship gets blown off of Caradhras because of Saruman, and the Ents really *would* have joined up sooner if they had actually known that something was happening. It makes the entire world very black and white, which was clearly not the original intention of Tolkien.
All of this is straight off the dome, so some of it might not be fully correct, but I still think it serves to show that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill isn't just out of nowhere. Yes, he in particular is probably mainly there in order for Tolkien to tie together his earlier fairy stories to his epic story because he liked the funny leprechaun he had created years earlier, but he does more than just insert him. He serves a wider purpose, which is a testament to how good of a writer Tolkien was.
Hearing the passion you two have for LOTR is contagious.
In the books Frodo was a badass. After being stabbed and chased he stops and turns towards the ring wraiths and pulls his sword out and challanges the wraiths. He is saved by Elrond and Gandalf casting a spell to force the river to flood, washing away the wraiths. So much more badass than what happens in the movie.
Thanks for this. Love your discussions, and the idea to go to 2 podcasts a week will keep me listening when a game doesn’t catch my interest. Love this kinda content, would love more podcasts about LotR and other classics you guys enjoy.
To add on the thing about oaths: In Tolkien's world, oaths are a BIG deal. There's the ghost warrior dudes Aragorn recruits who only got cursed that way because they broke an oath. There's the Oath of Feanor, which at least a few of his sons come to regret, but they *have* to keep to the oath, or.... something, we're never really sure. Point being, in Tolkien's world, you do not ever break an oath. To be an oathbreaker is to die.
Battle of the five armies had all the CGI redone for its 4k release, because they hadn't the time needed for the cinema release.
That's also for the whole trilogy. They had only 6 months for preproduction, because WB didn't have rights for making Hobbit movie.
Fun fact. Jason X is the first movie to be digitally color graded. It was just shelved for a couple years until after O Brother Where Art Thou.
yo that wizard fight was dope
Yes because for the first time we actually see why they are called the wizards. There is nothing "wizarly" seeing two people talking. And we can also see why is Saruman , at that point stronger than Gandalf.
@@VesnaLukic-h8w Ah, my dear friend, it seems that in all your haste to sound wise, you have mistaken mere spectacle for true power. A wizard’s strength does not lie in flashes of light or clashes of staff, but in the deep well of knowledge he commands. Perhaps when you have read more than the titles of books, you will grasp that wisdom, not force, is the greatest tool in any wizard's hands. Until then, I suggest you study in silence, lest you reveal more of your own lack thereof.
@@rancorprimegames Literature and movies are totally different media. One can explain many things, like strength of thoughts in writing, but, movies are visual media. One has to show the strength of a wizard in some other way than it is explain in the book. Some things that are in the book doesn't work in the film.. like Galadriel gift to Gimli for example.or the way that Saruman's and Gandalf's confrontation . It's perfect in the book but not as such in the movie.. But of, course, you have a right to your own opinion, not to like how it was shown on the screen. I like it a lot.. As you can see, I'm much more respectfull to you , then you are to me.. Knowledge, my dear, is not shown by putting other people down just because they have a different point of view . Maybe if you would just wait and think a bit what you are about to write, you would see by yourself that it's not a good thing to do. You may correct your behavior, or you may not. It's up to you. This was just one friendly advice. Lack of respect can still be corrected, if one has a will to do so.
@@VesnaLukic-h8w you said "There is nothing wizarly seeing two people talking" and I disagree
@@rancorprimegamesYou absolutely have a right to disagree . In, my opinion, on the screen, when you see 2 people talking, you can see their motivation, their interest and their intellect. But that doesn't mean those two people are wizards. If you don't know, they can be people of any kind. Wizards have powers that were explained in the book, but you have to show those powers in some way on the screen.. you have to show it visually . Maybe that "fight" was not the right way to show that power, but it's one of the ways. What do you think was the right way? Just like it happened in the book, or some other way?
we love the tragic because a human universal is the knowledge that one must one day die
Great analysis once again! I just wanted to add that the scene where the Hobbits meet the Nazgul for the first time is almost identically directed as it was in the 1978 animation. The similarities between the two always blow my mind.
28:55 I always assumed Aragorn found the swords on Weather Top while he was scouting around
Me also.
Here for this
Wait last episode Mike mentioned there would be a video on the book on his other channel. I don't think I even realized he had another channel. Can you please share the link? Would love to support more content
This needs way more views and likes. Nuff said!
Casen's voice for Sauron is perfect.
I loved this something of note to go a long with Kingsroot or that one plant Casen was talking about. Dandelion is a real world equivalent to that we see it as a bother a nuisance, but it has many herbal and medicinal purposes people have seemed to have just forgotten.
Nettle and thistle too!
Long have I waited…
I do miss Merry and Pippin being more involved in the early story. I really like the way Fellowship in the book begins and part of that is because of the friendship between the four Hobbits in those early chapters. For much of the beginning of the movie Merry and Pippin are just kinda gag characters rather than some of Frodo's closest friends and confidants. I don't mind alot of the other edits and omissions but that one always rubbed me the wrong way. It feels abrupt when they join. Maybe even if they were following Frodo and Sam because they were worried about them (rather than just by chance bump into them) I'd like it more and that's a small edit.
I nominate Casen for worst New Zealand accent impression of all time lol great video though ❤
btw there are some decent fan edits of the hobbit trilogy. there's the M4 edit and the Chris Hartwell edit that first comes to mind if youre interested
I really liked the Maple edit from a decade ago. Those films are much more digestible without the bloat.
Conservativism doesn't oppose change. It opposes quick change that undermines longstanding traditions because we should always be skeptical when a few people say they're smarter than the totality of past generations.
Edmund Burke wrote about this. Tolkien's politics were inspired by Burke.
Gondor is the living embodiment of a just kingdom according to Tolkien. The King's main responsibility is to uphold traditions for thousands of years and can't easily change them.
I think "reactionary" would be the better term for what these guys are talking about. Because as a Catholic, Tolkien absolutely supported longstanding traditions.
@jacobmonks3722 good point.
Tolkien's views on certain topics clearly changed from his youth. He became more of a proponent of guided evolution despite the backlash to it in the early 1900s, a middle ground between evolutionary eugenics and young Earth creationism. But he also rejected the Second Vatican for allowing traditional Catholic traditions like Latin masses to no longer being mandatory. He expressed that harmless cultural rituals are important to preserve to keep communities together
I haven’t watched this yet but I wanted to let you know the last video revealed to me there were significant differences between the books and the movies (I always thought they were mostly the same) so I’m committed to reading the books this year. 🙏
The Children of Húrin
Legends 🙏
Just found this channel, amazing analysis! I rather like that Legolas is used for crazy stunts since it was one of the few things that drove home that elves are physically stronger and more agile than humans. There are literally NO other elves in the lotr movies that we see demonstrate that difference. The other elves like Elrond, Arwen, and Galadriel are not fighters and show us the cerebral side instead. Think, without Legolas's stunts, what would even indicate to the audience that elves have different abilities? They could have been toned down, but I can see world-building value to it outside of fun.
Will you brodogs be uppoading this one as a podcast as you did the last one?
~Erik, son of Stewart
Tolkien is most correctly identified as anti-modernist. Anti-modernism is often associated with conservatism but it’s a different animal. There were some radically progressive anti-modernists. I often wonder if Tolkien was aware of the American poet Vachel Lindsay as they would have found kindred spirits in each other despite politics.
I totally agree on the absurdity of the action in certain scenes…considering Jackson’s filmography-specifically, brain dead and bad taste-it actually fits within his body of work. I believe the absurd/whimsical humor to his action is sort of a trademark to his directorial style. Additionally, I think he is very talented at visually creating a sense of scale and setting with his shots that is maybe overlooked. Anyways…I love the channel and hearing your thoughts on these movies! Would you guys ever consider covering books too?? Keep up the great work!
Regarding the color grading-Peter Jackson made adjustments to the 4K release of fellowship to have them parody the following two films…the downside to the 4K release is the aggressive use of DNR. There are so many different versions of these movies there might not be a “perfect” edition. I dig that I have a choice as a viewer…despite the older editions being harder to come by.
In terms of the deus machina, I think it's also important to have built a trust with the audience. In LotR I often feel like I don't know something, but I can trust the answer exists. Usually when it's not done well and I have such a question I'm quite sure there is no answer and the writer just made something up.
on the topic of the color grading. the green tint was added onto the blurays of Fellowship and TT, I was not a fan off. I prefered to watch the fan made Color Restorations of FotR and TT. RotK surpirsingly doesnt have the green tint. This is referring to the extented editions
Point against Arwen giving Fodo her grace and that being the reason he's able to go into the West and she is not. At the end of RotK it's stated that Sam too will go into the West when he gets old and that it's a function of being a ring bearer.
Can someone link to the “main channel/other channel” that Mike keeps mentioning? Can’t seem to find it anywhere.
You guys are the best.
2:04:00 it does look like a church, and the shards of Narsil are like a relic in a Roman Catholic Church.
Yep I’ve always named my main character Turin in every RPG I play cause that’s my favorite story in all fantasy, also to the beauty in sorrow conversation my brother always said just look at the human skull the mouth is always grinning but the eyes are always sad, maybe it’s simply innate in our nature
About Aragorn carring does swords/daggers: I just explained it always to myself, that Rangers got some stashes around their routes for reasons. That's nothing too special. At least in my mind.
There is definitely a line everyone has that the “fun” goes to far across. The barrel scene for example didn’t cross it for me, but I could easily see how it could for people. My biggest problem with “fun” scenes is when there is no straight man. You have to have someone acknowledge the absurd otherwise the movie loses any kind of grounding. Look at Thor love and thunder. All comedy without any hint of a straight man
Rogue One used old models that were scanned in, it was a good compromise. They actually look plastic in the film.
Love you
The passion you guys have for this keeps me listening. I love the films, but I can't stand Tolkien's writing. 3 names for everything is a major issue for me. I never know what he is referring to because I can only remember one made up word per location and they drift in and out of each term, only correlating them once and I've long since forgotten that correlation by the time it's brought up again. I read the books after watching the films and didn't really enjoy the books all that much. It's just not my kind of writing, even though I love fantasy stories. I like the adventure in LOTR, but that's about it. A lot of the comedic changes you talked about in the films are some of the most memorable parts for me. Oh well, at least here I learn plenty that I didn't know about these stories
48.00 If you enjoy mostly fun with a smattering of great heart, i can't recommend Terry Pratchetts disc world enough. Sure it makes you laugh tons, but then he all the sudden makes poignant commentary about the world and life and loss and love. I still remember finishing his entire library is work and lamenting that there will never be more written from this genius.
What is mikes main channel??
Casen you have talked about the Silmarillion
Watching the cut action scenes in the extended edition battle of five armies was so bloody and wild..
i love you guys
Hey so where is this main channel you’re planning on uploading more LotR content on? I wanna sub!
Disc 1 has been defeated.
Insert ff16 victory fanfare 🎵
When's the fetching ffix analysis coming Bois?
One day they will analyze Silmarillion and I hope there will be a great discussion about this part:
Then Manwe spoke and said:'Hearest thou, Feanor son of Finwe, the word of Yavanna? Wilt thou grant what she would ask?'
There was long silence, but Feanor answred no word. Then Tulkas cried:'Speak O Noldo, yea or nay! But who shall deny Yavanaa? And did not the light of the Silmarils come from her work in the beginning?'
But Aule the Maker said: ; Be no hasty! We ask a greater thing than thou knowest. Let him have peace yet awhile.'
They did a Silmarillion Book Club FYI
As for Water top.. well, they didn't stub Hobbits in the book either.. why? I love book, but what is very very silly to me is when Frodo got stubbed , there is no way, no way in hell that he could ride the big horse (that he never did before), for six days while ringwraithes were chasing him. That was stupidest thing in the book. When I read that, for the first time I thought it was stupid, and I still think it now.. It has much more sense that he would be carried by elf who are the best riders.
Watch Heavenly Creatures
There is no way the Neverending Story would age out. Whoever said that lost their soul.
Dam you Mike!! You were supposed to use a pic of yourself cosplaying as a rohirrim warrior in the thumbnail.
Use a pic of Casen cosplaying as a warrior for Gondor in a future ep.
Mike gives Rohan energy.
Casen gives more Gondor energy.
I dunno, I was happy to see a return to non clickbaity thumbs. I'm the "no fun allowed" robot I guess :(
Mike is the Gimli to Casen’s Legolas
You guys should do a podcast on the movie cloud atlas. That movie has so much to talk about in it. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on it
Will this episode have an audio version?
Come on Michael watch the 3rd movie!
47:00 I love your videos but this is a bad take in my opinion. Game of Thrones' tragedy events are all telegraphed far ahead of time and are all a result of character decisions, their flaws, and interactions. I personally find It's writing a breathe of fresh air for the fantasy genre where it feels as if no character has plot armor.
To distill it down to overbearing tragedy for the sake of tragedy feels disingenuous.
Is this a reupload from Patreon sub?
Weed 😎
your love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind
Continue to delight us with your unique ideas. Your videos are a true inspiration.🎈👊🎁