#31 - Peter Jackson CUT the BRAVEST Hobbit (and his dogs!) - Every Change in The Lord of the Rings
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- 📺 View the Full Episode ► • Peter Jackson CUT the ...
Farmer Maggot didn't get his due in the films. That's a serious problem.
Download our full podcast at exploringtolki... -- or just search "Exploring Tolkien" on any podcast app!
💬 Join Our Discord Community! ► / discord
🎉 Become a member at theonering.com... ($4/mo and 1st month is FREE) and get:
Our Extended podcast
Access to our exclusive Discord community
Monthly video chats
Submit a LOTR Film Change ► theonering.com...
----------------------------
🎧 Subscribe to our Exploring Tolkien Podcast 🎧
----------------------------
Get the Extended Podcast ► theonering.com...
Apple ► podcasts.apple...
Spotify ► open.spotify.c...
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I noticed that when I first saw the movie.... Farmer Maggot is fearless in the book.
That is some other Hobbit definitely not farmer maggot.
The change of character is perfectly fine given that it's just a momentary scene. Without all that extra exposition and dialogue from the book, the only thing an unidentified hobbit standing up to one of the Nazgul would serve to do is undermine the fearsome aspect of the Black Riders.
Perfect
Strongly disagree. The fearsome aspect of the Nazgul was supposed to be built up gradually during the journey to Rivendell, the Nazgul were not supposed to be like that right at the start.
This is actually another thing Jackson screwed up, he immediately made the Nazgul terrifying enemies violently attacking the hobbits in the Shire already, while Tolkien did it much more subtly, by having them go from strange, to unsettling, to threatening, to terrifying, to mortally dangerous. The fact that hobbits at the start were just unsettled but still talking back to them, fits perfectly in this pattern, as these are the very first times we even hear of the black riders.
That's how you do good horror writing, and Jackson's main problem throughout the movies is always that he lacks subtlety and wants to make every scene either an action scene or a drama scene.
@@frankvandorp2059 how would you do all that in a film? How much screen time would that take? How long would that film be eventually?
@@VictorRochaFerreira6 That would absolutely take no extra screentime at all. You just would have to change the existing scenes, you would not have to add a single scene.
So I have no idea what you're on about here.
I'm not with you on this one. They needed to convey the crushing fear instilled by the Nazghul. A 3-feet tall farmer giving them the "get out of my property" treatment hardly sells the idea.
So Tolkien was wrong, when he had multiple hobbits talk back to the black riders in the books?
Or did Peter Jackson get it wrong when he completely removed Tolkien's subtle buildup of the threat of the black riders, simply to create action scenes in the Shire already instead of Weathertop when they were supposed to start?
@@frankvandorp2059different mediums. A book can take as long as it needs to explain who everyone is and their backstory. The movies don’t have that luxury, the character we see isn’t even named as Maggot. This is a perfectly understandable change.
@@dansharp2860 This is simply not an argument, as the movies also took quite a long time getting from the Shire to Rivendell, with many black rider scenes throughout. So they had all the time and opportunity they needed to gradually build up their threat, instead of immediately dial it up to the max.
@@frankvandorp2059 I was more talking about stopping the flow of the film to explain who this random Hobbit farmer is and why he doesn't fear the Nazgul the way the hearty Gondorian soldiers do. Trust me, for the layman viewer "why didn't they send the fearless farmer?" would become the new "why didn't they just fly the eagles to Mordor?" Tolkien could take 3 pages to explain it and not loose a line of the actual story while PJ is giving up precious seconds of screen time for something that ultimately means very little and could easily confuse some audience members. Like Bombadil it's not necessary for the overall story.
@@dansharp2860 Well, the answer would be that the Nazgul in the war for Gondor ride fearsome flying monsters and constantly send out their paralyzing screams, while as black riders in the Hobbit they're just dark-clad figures who whisper a bit.
This answer is so obvious that for the layman, this really wouldn't be a question at all, let alone one on the level of "why didn't they just fly the eagles to Mordor?" That's why Tolkien never needed to explain it either, neither in the books nor in response to questions in interviews.
Have you ever done a review of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings radio dramas produced for NPR by The Mind's Eye? They are most likely the most complete dramatizations of the two books; the main issues of contention might be accents and casting choices.
To portray farmer maggot while keeping the Nazgûl menacing would take at least 30 extra minutes of screen time. It’s not practical