Discover Tolkien’s Middle Earth in a whole new way! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
What you're doing here is great. Something that might make it more effective is using illustrations of characters, when discussing the actual writings. Something about seeing the visual depiction of the movie's version of events, while the book is discussed, makes it difficult for the book's version to register in my brain. Might be just me tho. A Ken Burns style use of illustrations as stills could be very effective, & distinctive. This method would also make it very clear, when U switch from discussing the movie, to discussing the book. It might also be easier to match stills with your monologue. Hope this sounds more like helpful data, than criticism. I haven't read Tolkien in very long time, & being reminded about the differences, is very interesting. Good Luck!
I think the artistic differences make sense for telling a visual story vs a written one. Gandalf being aware of the Balrog and being uneasy during the scene really validates the eminent threat of the Balrog. Its adds drama and makes the viewer feel the gravity of the Balrog's power level. While I do wish we could have seen a glimpse of the Balrog represented as a magic wielder/maiar, I think the visuals of the scorching tunnel in the distance, the fleeing of the orcs, and the chaos of the flight of the fellowship, and finally terror of the ancient demon's reveal worked seamlessly. I give this scene a 10/10
It's all about communicating the same basic story in a much more concise way, cutting out unnecessary info, which it did very well. There's so much in the books that is unnecessary for a movie.
one little thing I would have liked to have is instead of it roaring I would have liked to hear it say something along the lines of, "you will die here, wizard" (in the Black Speech of Mordor of course) with the same voice as the roar. yes it would have been hard to understand, and that's okay. it would have shown it is clearly an intelligent being and not a firey rage monster.
The orcs running away wasn't necessarily out of character or nonsensical, either, in my opinion. Just because they were on the same side doesn't mean the orcs wouldn't have been scared every time this thing made an appearance. The Balrog would have regarded them as an inferior beings and wouldn't have hesitated to kill them if they displeased him or if he woke up in a bad mood.
@@ElveeKaye I coul also see them being afraid of being burned just by its presence. I could totally see it swatting them aside like flies just to scare the enemy.
@@Stevie-L-n8g The line was movie-cool, but you are completely right. Not to mention that an Olog-Hai was slain by Pippin at the Morranon, but this single cave Troll held the entire fellowship at the at bay. That is the worst side of Peter Jackson. I hated that battle scene already in the trailer to the movie, because it was just action for show, instead of a buildup to the great confrontation with the balrog. Less is more sometimes.
That line had me grinning from ear to ear. When I first watched it, my father burst out laughing because he'd had players in his D&D games utter lines just like that.
One of the things I like best in this scene is how it demonstrates the way magic works in LOTR: It states things to be so, and so they are. Gandalf declares that the Balrog cannot pass (shall not in the movie, which is another change) and indeed he cannot. Gandalf states to the Witch King that he cannot enter the city of Gondor and so it is (he gets distracted, true, but still he did not enter the city). Frodo at one point clutches the Ring and declares that if Gollum touches him again, he shall burn in the fires of Mount Doom. Gollum does touch him again, and he does burn in the fires of Mount Doom. Magic literally describes what "is".
My favorite is the deleted scene about the death of Saruman. Gandalf says "your staff is broken", and immediately Saruman's staff explodes into splinters. He doesn't say, "your staff will break" or "I will break your staff". He's not saying what shall be or really doing anything other than his capacity as an emissary and spokesman for Eru, he is just stating a fact.
The change from "can" to "shall" is excellent - it portrays the Balrog's passing as an act strictly dependent on Gandalf's will. It shall not pass. Not that it can't - it shall not, while Gandalf wills it so.
@@GholaTleilaxu If I declared "the sky is green", that would not make it true. But in Tolkiens world, if a being with sufficient magical abilities says so then the sky will indeed become green.
I don't think that's huge at all. By that logic, discussing a CRAPPY film that was made 20 years ago would also be "huge". And why would anybody NOT discuss a movie made 20 years ago or more unless it was as amazing as Lord of the Rings? That makes no sense. It's this same fallacious non-logic that people apply when they say a movie is X years old and therefore spoiler warnings need not be given. Or the classic "how can a movie from X years ago be THIS good?", as if it's youth, not passion, creativity, resources, artistry, talent and good writing that determines whether a movie is good. Apply that fallacy to books and you will rightfully be called a clown. A better thing to say about lord of the rings (the movies) is that the techniques, actor skill, set design, dress design, visual storytelling and world-building is so amazing that it is essentially timeless. A universal classic. The movie can be a hundred years old and will still essentially be one of, if not THE greatest achievements in filmmaking and a must watch for all humans on the planet. THAT, I would say, IS huge.
It's a classic, probably a timeless one. I wouldn't be surprised if people still discuss LotR in 100 years like we do "Birth of a Nation," but for better reasons. I suspect it will be considered a cultural high water mark for many, many decades. Since, almost literally everything in the modern era has been polluted by the same kind of the most superficial pro-establishment political messaging imaginable. We are entering into a nigh unprecedented period of political suppression, not only of speech but of thought itself which is already obliterating the quality of new Western cultural artifacts. I don't think the West will rediscover the importance of freedom of speech until a dominant global East has a cultural renaissance based on the global West of twenty years ago and justly mocks the West what it did to itself in this period.
@kevincanning3051 are you a fan of the extended works of Tolkien, finished by Chris Tolkien that the show draws from? Most of the criticism comes from the fact that the show strays so far from the books. Not in the usual ways, but ways that were actually fairly offensive to the most avaid fans. I happen to be someone who didn't actually enjoy the Silmarillion at all and quite enjoys the show. However, I don't think that's the best way to judge quality. The show *is* bad because it tramples all over the utterly beautifully constructed world JRR Tolkien made. I feel like I'm doing something mildly sacrilegious when I watch it.
I think it is more so that not knowing what enemy he faces (especially since it is already a threat great enough to catch him off guard) is a greater threat to gandalf than a balrog. imagine being unsure whether whatever just killed you with a counter spell is just a taste of its power, imagine the possibility it may be the Dark Lord himself. the wisdom and knowledge is the wizards magic in a sense, so 'ignorance' in terms of not knowing what is happening is like the opposite or something like that. idk XD
A thing to note about the spell-duel is that when the door explodes the ceiling of the chamber also collapses, which is why it doesn't immediately follow them.
A great many of us had read the books decades before Jackson's take on the tale was filmed. Jackson included. He knew what to commit to film to get the story across and that us old salts could fill in the gaps on our own. The films are fantastic, and the the book is still peerless in print. All Good.
I think it makes much more sense for Frodo to be stabbed by an orc rather than the troll. Even if mithril can stop the troll's spear, it was a shirt. It's flexible. The spear wouldn't have pierced him, but the troll would have broken several ribs, easily. Even with the mithril, Frodo would have had severe internal injuries, so he'd still be dead.
In the book, even with the stab being by an orc instead of a troll, Frodo was still moderately injured, though not dangerously. The book describes Frodo's injuries thus: "There was a dark and blackened bruise on Frodo's right side and breast. Under the mail, there was a shirt of soft leather, but at one point the rings had been driven through it into the flesh. Frodo's left side also was scored and bruised where he had been hurled against the wall."
@@DamonNomad82 yeah, even in the movie, when we see Frodo shirtless in Cirith Ungol, he has a bruise, but my point was that a troll is so much bigger than an orc. Even if the spear didn't pierce him, he still should have died from the impact.
I think you have to allow a little "elven rope" in the logic. I've had the EXACT same issues. There's still a creature three times to size of a gorilla stabbing you on loose chain.
You're forgetting that Jackson isn't filming just for Tolkein fans. He's also telling the story for people who have only the vaguest idea of the books. Yes, there are things he changed, a lot. But he succeeded where Ralph Bakshi failed. And I will always love that he made "Middle-Earth" a character in the movies. The landscapes the cast moves through... so amazing. New Zealand really shines there.
@@jachyra9 What impossible arrogance. You don't think that maybe it might be *_you_* that failed to understand? No, that couldn't happen could it? It must be _everyone else_ that's wrong, not you. Never you.
@@stickiedmin6508 - No. It's not arrogance, little one. It's simply reading comprehension. Of course you're putting words in my mouth here: I never said it was italicized everyone else who's wrong. You did. Because baby can't form a cogent argument and feels threatened.
@@eyesofthecervino3366 Plus the weight of the Balrog! Whip wrapped around legs, Balrog holding on to whip…. Gandalf knew he was toast. That he held n long enough for that “fly you fools” was both epic and, sadly, massively unlikely but it’s a story. Shouted as he fell-more realistic. Of course, I *like* it as written (which Jackson matched in the film). Who wouldn’t? I like it and hate it-almost threw the book across the room the first time I read it. But I was twelve and losing Gandalf was just too personal… 😢
That doesn’t work, he literally fought a demon of fire and darkness for days and killed it, he has superhuman strength, the best explanation for the movie is that he wanted to kill the balrog to get rid of a threat to middle earth rather than being to weak to pull himself up.
Like a lot of key moments in Jackson's trilogy, he chose to accentuate the immediate drama of the moment rather than pay service to Tolkien lore. I think this was the right move, since book readers will sort of automatically fill in the blanks and be rewarded with an objectively awesome representation of the Balrog, while non-readers will simply feel the gravity of a powerful and scary being confronting our heroes. It works on both levels and really shows how much care was put into the adaptation.
Also Jacksons excellent usage of "show don't tell" which simply doesn't apply to books. And let's not pretend that a book-accurate movie would work. The timeframe for instance, between the scene of Frodo receiving the ring and actually leaving the Shire SEVENTEEN YEARS pass. The amount of singing and walkng in the Fellowship was sometimes even too much for me and I read LotR probably a dozen times. Bombadil being the complete wildcard in the otherwise extremely consistant Universe. Et cetera
I do think the counter curse thing would have been an epic moment especially as the movies were so good at making spells sound so powerful and well fankly good to the ear. Like when you hear Saruman doing the spells on the mountain, Arwen with the horse wave or when you hear Sauron is speaking the black speech in the background at Rivendale.
Yes but it would water down the highpoint of the movie, peter jackson wanted it to be an epic last stand battle the likes we have never seen. I think he made a good choice in doing that, and also gandalf being aware of the balrog before moria is better for the movie, because it creates tension and fear and it fits well because of the flashback with saruman where he tells gandalf how the dwarves dug to deep, and unleashed the bane of durin.
Wish they would have kept the part from the book where Aragorn brings his sword down on the orc chieftain's head so hard it literally splits his helm (and his head) in half with a shower of white sparks. Fucking epic!
They put the more gory stuff in the extended versions. After all, Newline had to get a rating that would allow kids into the movies during the inital run. Even with violence, there's only so much the raters will allow.
@@hecate235 The entire reason they got around the rating in the first place, is that most of the gorey, brutal scenes happen to fictional creatures (orcs etc.) and the violence on anything human is mild to nonexistant in the theatre cut. Like Chicken above me said, Aragorn still literally decapitates an Orc, he literally skewers Lurtz with his Sword and decapitates him as well, you see the head fucking flying off. There's just not an explosion or a gushing of blood shown. So as long as they would have kept it relatively bloodless on screen, they absolutely could have gotten away with the splitting a head through a helmet scene.
In the book his staff being destroyed is actually critically important to his role as an Istari (Wizard). Scepters are a trope as a symbol of power (hierarchically) especially in English literature, and Tolkien uses staves the same way with the Istari. He was essentially removed from his role the moment they engaged and his staff was broken. In a sense he is relieved from the burden of responsibility as a guide and teacher to the denizens of Middle Earth, and may freely engage with the Balrog. This could be seen as permission granted to him by Eru Iluvatar; if he is no longer burdened by his assigned role he may engage as freely as he chooses with what is essentially a familial being at an equal power level. When Gandalf the White encounters Saruman a similar thing occurs: "[Gandalf] raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet." This is in a way Gandalf demonstrating that he is there to replace Saruman in his position as head of the Istari. Eru Iluvatar sent them to Middle Earth and their staff is a symbol of that authority. Without it there is none. It is in this way it is that Eru Iluvatar is essentially relinquishing Saruman of his role and installing Gandalf there instead, rather than it being an act of Gandalf upon Saruman. This effective demotion can also be a way to give freedom to Gandalf and punishment to Saruman, where now Gandalf (or Middle Earth itself) is free to decide how to handle him without his authority. Gandalf does do a better job of guidance instead of rule as he later gives that power to the Hobbits during the Scouring of the Shire: "My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.” They then decide how to handle Saruman, as their roles in this world have equalized. (Well, Grima gets to him and they deal with Grima).
In my headcanon, Gandalf didn't even touch any of the stairs, he just rocketed straight down the staircase and landed noseflat before the others. Then he stood up, wiped the dust off and said "Alright, that's done."
Same, although given he was probably facing the door when is exploded, I’ve always imagined he came down backwards, so it’d be the back of his head and shoulders, not his face that would’ve struck the ground at the bottom of the stairs.
Nice video - there's also the passage where Gandalf fights the Balrog after their plummet, and the body of water that breaks their fall turns it into a giant grasping slime monster; Jackson wanted to include this, I think using the idea of cooled lava to depict it, but his budget wouldn't accommodate this - I know this is 2 Towers but it's still Balrog-y - also, it would be interesting to compare Bakshi's version of this encounter as well
Something that wasn't mentioned is that the East Door of the Chamber of Marzabul collapses after the Gandalf and the Balrog fight over it, so they aren't immediately followed. When they get to the large hall they emerge on the other side of the flaming fissure, which the Orcs had meant to trap them before the bridge, than the Orcs had expected, which means that the Orcs can't follow them. The Balrog has two trolls who build a makeshift bridge out of stone slabs across the fissure so he can cross through the flames.
Ah that's the logistics of the scene that always confused me as a kid when I read it. Thank you for laying it out for us! So *that's* why that fire was there, and that's what those trolls were doing.
@@stefanol7814 Yes, you're right, makes sense: a balrog wouldn't need to worry about fire. I just never made the connection as a kid reading these books) between the fire being created as a trap to fence the Fellowship in, and that they surprised the orcs by getting around the fire via the large hall on another level.
One of the coolest scenes in the movie for me was how massive the balrog was to them, but then how small it looked in comparison as they were falling from the hole into the water deep below. The sense of scale was amazing.
I can understand why they cut it out of the movie (trying to make it a more tense, fast-paced chase scene and all), but the mystery of the counterspell that nearly broke Gandalf leading up to the big reveal that it was a Balrog, which is a big deal considering they were essentially Morgoth's praetorian guards from the First Age, all along is a much better buildup than just having the Orcs run away from the "big, buff fire monster."
the entry of the Balrog on the bridge is still hard af! i remember being in the cinema and being totaly blown away by the visuals and the amazing sound design, still holds up ver well today!
I doubt Gandalf was thinking, "I guess it's my destiny to kill the Balrog." He was just doing his best to stay alive, and staying alive meant hewing the Balrog until one of them was dead.
Gandalfs agenda wasnt just to end Saurons reign, it was to secure the world for the "mortal" peoples. The events of the hobbit were triggered by him to take out the dragon, so he cant join forces with Sauron, and he also chose to take the Balrog out of the equation for the same reason.
I so wish we'd gotten the Balrog depicted as a shadowy Maia, doing the entire "drawing itself up to great height" mirroring what Gandalf does in Bag End when he admonishes Bilbo for accusing him of trying to steal the ring. It's like in Dark Souls. It's not the giant boss that frightens you. It's the one that's close to your size.
To be fair, if you pay attention, he gets hits and kills in here and there. He also saves Sam a number of times. I think the biggest offender is the Weathertop scene, but I understand why they did it.
Another change that isn't mentioned, is the chasm of fire. In the books, the Orcs try to corral the fellowship onto the wrong side of the chamber, separated from the bridge by the fissure that crosses the entire chamber. But the Fellowship doesn't go the way the Orcs planned, so they come out on the right side of the fissure. The Orcs then find themselves trapped on the wrong side, and need to create bridges which buys the Fellowship some time to escape.
That's some real life stuff, military planning hardly ever seem to work the way it is envisioned and you have to adapt to the circumstances as they unfold.
Balrog would win this fight without much struggle, however, the odds became increasingly against him, when he fell, which not only badly damaged him, but extinguished his fire. Gothmog, the lord of Balrogs, literally drowned in a huge fountain. Durin's Bane survived the fall into the abyss lake. I'd say Gandalf won because the Balrog got extremely weary due to elemental hazards. It's not to downplay Gandalf's bravery and strength, but to highlight how monstrous Bane was.
@@thedarkone9552 There is a known unknown here: Gandalf wielding Narya in addition to what Ainur powers he retained had mastery over fire. Could he have extinguished the Balrog’s fire? Turned it down? Shielded himself from it? I believe they are all possible-to some degree-but have no way of knowing to what degree. And then there is the matter of divine (Valar) intervention. No doubt both Gandalf and the Balrog were exhausted when they emerged on the mountaintop and the Balrog burst anew into flame. To my mind it is credible that Gandalf, on the righteous side, might have received a vital boost from Manwë/Varda allowing him to prevail. Mind you, nothing I know of **says** this happened but nothing says it didn’t-what we know is Gandalf fought, killed his enemy, then died. Then was sent back (which meant his body HAD to have been healed to some extent) with a new staff, new powers, adjusted mission. That strongly suggests to me that ALL the Istari were being watched-but only Gandalf remained true. (Though at least Radagast didn’t fall into evil). So Gandalf went from stalemate to victor. What changed?
@@jimvaiknoras7822 Yes, I know all the arguments. I participated in a debate many years ago. I won't reveal which side I argued on. I also debated whether Tolkien's elves have pointed ears and whether The Silmrillion is canonical. Again, I won't reveal the sides I took.
I like the giant flame beast of the movies but I also like the book's more wizard-like, man-shaped demon wrapped in wings of shadow. This, like the book's ringwraiths, would have been harder to visualize on film though.
@@maximus3160 I didn't mean he was like an Istari. But the book calls him man-shaped and he used magic with intelligence and wasn't just a brute monster. In fact there is a lot of debate about whether he had actual wings or if the wings were only shadows
IIRC, in the book, when Gandalf is spelling the door shut, and the Balrog, as yet unrecognized, uses a counter spell, not just the door fails. The room beyond caves in, which, in fact, provides time for the company to continue its escape through Moria unopposed for a time.
My favorite part of the extended edition appendices is when they talk about the scene of the Fellowship running down the stairs in Moria. Apparently, the whole 5 min sequence was never scripted, and the actual screenplay never said anything but "the Fellowship run down some stairs." Which means the "Nobody tosses a Dwarf" line was a total ad lib. Thank you John Rys Davies.
Great video, great channel. Thanks. It's not often these days I run into a channel that is obviously not AI, has good content, and doesn't put ads every 3 minutes through the video. This is how creators should make their channels.
You have to wonder, being near crippled as a Maia by his Istari state and then augmented by Narya he was still no match for Saruman the White until he had returned from the dead. It was probably the addition of Glamdring that was most important to making it a fairer fight as the Balrog appears to have lost his weapons once he hit the water but Gandalf did not (in the books).
I very much like the change that orcs run away from the Balrog. Yes, they are technically on the "side of evil", but this little detail shows the Balrog as a great, wild, primal force of evil, that rarely cares about sides when it lays destruction in its path. If even the orcs are scared of it, it suddenly isn't just "bigger bad guy", it's something completely new, unpredictable, mysterious, ancient and dangerous beyond rhyme or reason.
The movies are great and I absolutely love the books which I have read at least 12 times over the last 57 years. I feel there is one major location change from these chapters and the movies and that is Moria itself. The movies show Moria as dirty, dull, dim and rough hewn. For example in your script you describe the fellowship running down a corridor of pillars. It wasn't simply pillars it was a meticulously carved replica of Loren, down to the individual leaves. When I first read the books at age 13 I was left was a sense of how truly bad ass Dwarven craftsmanship was. It was not only beautiful, but reflective, polished, insanely detailed, reflective light beaming throughout and made to endure the ages. When I read the books I'm left with a sense of how much the Dwarves have lost, not just wealth, they lost their homeland and the holy land that was gifted to them by the Valor. A place of beauty, wonder and riches.
the Moria sequence really was what sold me with the books when i was a kid. First the western side is a maze of tunnels, wells, passage ways winding in a "bewildering" array. then after the Guard room the move along a wide and well made "high way" then they get to the "habitable parts" with great pillared halls and windows on the side of the mountain.
This analysis shows me that PJ knew how to be both a great fan of the lore and direct a great movie. I can't imagine the events playing out any different than he ahowed them. Masterpiece. Absolute masterpiece.
The scene with The Fellowship didn' really happen the way it did in the script. The script just said "The Fellowship ran down the stairs of Khazad-Düm". It got extended thanks to Peter Jackson seeing a drawing that conceptual artist Alan Lee had done of the stairs, which had a break in the stair. That gave him the idea of having an action sequence there with the orcs shooting arrow at them while they jumped and so on. They made a pre-viz of the scene (one thing that they didn't use from it was at the beginning of the stairs when Frodo runs the first set, he almost stumbles and nearly falls off the edge and nearly drops The Ring but Aragorn managed to grab him and Frodo catches The Ring in time) which they show to the actors before they shot it (which was on the last day of Principle Photography at the end of 2000, just before the Christmas break). Gimli's line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" was in fact made AFTER he did the "Toss me" scene in The Two Towers. Also, the "Not the beard" line was an improvisation of John Rhys-Davies as he shouted it to Orlando Bloom, as he was concerned that he would rip John's beard off his face, which would take 40 mintues for the makeup team to reapply. Peter Jackson found the line comical, hence why it got stuck in the movie.
@@talstory Remember that a film is a visual medium. A lot of things are good in a novel, and don't do well on the screen, and vice versa. The flight on the stairs scene makes perfect sense to me for a film adaptation. The part that I didn't like was the beard scene, as it further solidifies Gimli's Sesame Street goofy/comic relief change.
My only problem with the stair scene is that nobody believes that Frodo and really also Aragorn are going to die at this point, so it falls flat. They should have had Boromir and Pippin's lives hang in the balance, that would have been much more impactful (especially since in the movie it's sort of Pippin's fault that they are in this situation).
True, but the pressure at that point comes from Durin's Bane being hot on their tails. It's a time bomb -style of scene with a puzzle, outside interference and a fuse. @@magiv4205
Yeah the book balrog is really different. It has a mane as well and is described as a large man made of shadow with fire wreathed around it with only the tips of the mane on fire.
@@jotnarymir1393Not a large man. It says it’s “man-like” in stature but far greater in size. And Tolkien left it very vague. Because he allows his work to be left up to interpretation. It’s referred to as a demon. And in the Silmarillion, it’s stated that they are demonic looking in nature. So having horns and wings isn’t out of the question.
@@Shadowrulzalways First, nowhere in Silmarillion or any other writing, are balrogs described as having wings (or horns), though there are frequent references to fangs or claws. Second, while the description of Durin's Bane doesn't give much detail, it does say "shadow like wings", meaning, no real wings, just shadow that stretches wide. Third, Durin's Bane is the second balrog we know about that is killed by being thrown from an elevated place, which really doesn't make sense for a winged creature, unless they are a penguin or ostrich. Fourth, being a demon means absolutely nothing about their physiognomy.
@@irena4545 First, I said in the Silmarillion, they are described as demonic. Never once said that they are depicted having wings or not. Or horns. I said it’s more plausible as being demonic means it fits the bill. And yes, being a demon does matter in their physical apparence. Second, stop being uptight and grow up.
The balrog was a beast that gandolf solo’s. It was character development showing how Gandalf was more than we perceive. Legolas nor Aragorn could do the same. Gandalf is the anchor and he arrives precisely as he means.
I thought to comment on tis too. Havin say that, Sir Ian McKellen’s “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!” is unsurpassable & I wouldn’t haf Peter Jackson do it any other way
@@TheAlmostGothic he does, I had forgotten. he referenced the line as he breaks the bridge in the book in correctly. Great scene in the movie and my understanding is McKellan simply said the line wrong
The movie version is more appropriate visually and dramatically. In the book he doesn't shout it, but states it as a fact, since that is how Maiar magic works. It's not usually fire bolts and flashy, but just changing how the reality is in the world. Another example more true to the book's concept is Gandalf telling Saruman that his staff is broken, and it breaks, or when he tries to release Theoden from the aging spell. So with the balrog, he was just setting up something similar to the door spell where the balrog wouldn't be able to go further.
The point where they identify the Balrog, Gimli also names it Durin's Bane, which is the name it's been known by ever since it brought about the ruin of Khazad-Dum. And, of course, Legolas calls it a Balrog of Morgoth, and Gandalf says, "Now I understand."
Also worth noting, while Gandalf didn't dare enter Moria in the movie, in the book its totally opposite he wanted to explore the mines as it both his destiny also to give the hobbit a view of their life as the architecture of the mines and ancient dwarven kingdom of Moria and gives Frodo a chance to learn about the Mithril as he wear one just now. And Aragorn with the ability of foreseen the future saw a terrible incident will happen while they explore the mines.
One thing that I find interesting is that Gullom was trying to get west to find shire and baggins and then in moria he is lost and nearly starved till he sees the Fellowship and follows the out the way he came
I think there's an element of terror and horror to the idea of the balrog approaching the door kind of mysteriously, things going quiet, and them kind of struggling against each other for a moment before Gandalf is NEARLY KILLED with magic. It reads SO DIFFERENTLY that it's a totally different scene. It would no longer be a huge action sequence.
The sealing of the tomb door and the counterspell by the Balrog, sending Gandalf falling through the stairs to the fellowship, is legitedly one of the most sad frustrating book to cinema changes I endured in my life.
Agree. The surprise of Gandalf in discovering what he was facing makes sense in the book. In the movie he knows what is waiting and still leads the group inside the mines. I can imagine the entire group wanting to berate Gandalf if he had survived for failing to mention the tiny detail of what they might have to face.
i actually really liked Gandalf knowing about the balrog prior. Gandalf in the movies was sort of a father figure to the group. he was the wise leader who could be turned to in a crisis. to have a rock solid character like that terrified of a yet unseen foe serves to add just that much more gravitas to the scene. when the demon is finally revealed, it does not disappoint. the only change i might have added was a few lines from the balrog itself to distinguish it as a true malevolent intelligence capable of it's own will rather than more of a beast or a force of nature as depicted in the movies. it would have been so menacing to have had the balrog whisper one of Gandalf's ancient names, challenging him to fight, which would have also added more of a reason for Gandalf to pursue the demon into the deep.
Wow thanks! You reminded me why I read those books so many times before seeing the movies. Now, I'm stuck with a tainted memory and haven't touched them since.
I am shocked that anybody asks the question "why didn't Gandalf just climb back up onto the bridge?" as if that was a choice. Why doesn't anybody who falls off of a ledge just choose to climb back up? Gravity is not a choice. You fall because you're unable to climb back up. He was exhausted from the fight already, and he is an old man after all. Just because you can catch the edge of a ledge as you're falling doesn't mean you're capable of climbing back up. Life is not a video game. I video games, you can always climb up a ledge easily, not because it's easy, but because they didn't program any game mechanics for what happens when you fall. They make it look really easy in video games, but it's not so easy in reality.
I think the reason they did the Gandalf lines while holding on to the ledge, is because if Gandalf was speaking while falling, screaming to his companions to run away, that would appear comical in a movie. Just imagine it. And with the voice going out as he falls, fly you fooooooollllssss dragging on as he drops out of sight. It would be comical. Another thought I had when Gandalf couldn't hold on to the ledge was that he was too exhausted from the spells and combating the Balrog. Normally he could climb back no problem. But he was tired and wounded, including from the whip.
@@jachyra9 Because someone took the stores seriously. I read the books in 1997. And I had no visabile component to the love of the books. The "Hobbit" and tje "Lord of the Rings" cartoons were ok. But nobody looked at them seriously. I just love that some writer / director took the source material seriously.
@@jachyra9 I guess your opinion is in the minority. Considering the 12 Oscar nominations for Return of the King. Apparently some people thought they were pretty good. Oh, and I had a typo. It was 1977 when I first read them. I was 7 years old. And I read them at least once a year for at least 10 years... while playing DND.
@@lonnieeastin6401 - "I guess your opinion is in the minority." How do you know this exactly? And even if it is, what difference would that make? It doesn't make my opinion invalid. "Considering the 12 Oscar nominations for Return of the King." The Oscars aren't bestowed based on the quality of the film. Everyone knows this, or should, by now. The members of the Academy don't even watch the films they nominate, and I have no doubt that none of them at the time ever read The Lord of the Rings. You, like all those you believe whose opinions constitute a majority, are attempting to defend a literary adaptation based on trophies doled out by a very small group of people who don't care about the film you care about. Think about that. "Apparently some people thought they were pretty good." Good for those some people. You have epically failed to form a cogent argument. " I was 7 years old. And I read them at least once a year for at least 10 years... while playing DND." Okay. I've been rereading The Lord of the Rings every year since 1982. The same year I started playing D&D. There is no such thing as "DND."
Having read the books several times, I do remember much of what your cover here or are reminded as you narrate. I remember him being weakened by the counter spell for example. The power of the visual media is strong and what I recall from the movies is what first comes to mind in most cases. Impressive movie making on Jackson's part. This tells me it is time for a fresh reading of the books. 👍
I think it is important when we compare Peter Jackson's LotR to Tolkein that we remember that Tolkein wrote a book, not a screen play. He had no skill in writing movie scripts and made no effort to make his books work well on a movie screen.
Gandalf: "Someone made a counterspell on me... Did the Hobbit leaf really clouded my mind?" Legolas: "Oi! A Balrog!" Gandalf: "Oh thank Eru it's him, not me!" But in all seriousness, I kinda like how movie made Moria to feel. Dark hallways where once life was, where any unnecessary noise can doom their travel. In the book's "Fool of a Took" moment, they just carried on, meanwhile in the movie it is shown why exactly they tried to be quiet as possible and even risking to give more light. And a rest during escape from Moria would break the intense pacing of the moment in the movie. Also, isn't it a common knowledge that Balrog was the reason why Dwarf colonies in Moria were doomed? And even if it's just Dwarf knowledge (which evident by Legolas. A WOOD Elf recognized the creature, not the Wizard), Gandalf definitely knew of history of Moria but was more afraid of Orcs than of Balrog? Doesn't really make sence to me, tbh.
key word, a wood *elf*. elves fought the balrogs before in the war of wrath, and they where legendary minions of morgoth. in fact, legolas calls it a "balrog of morgoth" correctly. glorfindel (cut from the movie) died the first time fighting one. add that elves live forever if not killed, a few eyewitnesses remained and would have told stories-heck, glorfindel may have told the tale in rivendel some time. Gimli knew it was "durin's bane", but couldn't name it beyond it being the legendary scary thing. Gandalf did recognize it when prompted "a baelrog.... what an evil fate this is, and I am already wearied!" keep in mind, that may well be the LAST of the 7-8 baelrogs that ever existed. while gandalf was literally there at the music of the ainuir when the baelrogs where formed/recruited by melkor and his discord, it's been 20-30K years since he may have personally seen one. his speech on the bridge is a divine rebuke of the monster, correctly calling it "flame of udûn". so he knows, but he didn't get a good look at it in the chamber and was badly shocked by the counterspell it fired. he may have suspected what it was and hoped he was wrong. legolas, by comparison, has very sharp eyes and has heard these stories as legend for years. his dad is 6.5K - 7K years old, which means he could have been a child at the end of the first age, just barely. (6-7K years ago). thus, he may have have had stories to tell his son legolas.
@@ShotesuPresumably Melchor had followers amongst the maiar-in addition to Sauron. It would be from those that he made the modifications (presumably permanent) that turned them into Balrogs. How many? Dunno but you’re right, it’s a finite number and reason suggests it probably is a small number (though not necessarily less than a dozen). My question is what happens to the spirit (fëa) of the original maia-if ainur/maiar have spirits in any way comparable to Ilúvatar’s children. But I fear that answer died with the author…
@@joerosenman3480 the spirit is trapped into the adopted body until the latter gets destroyed. Then depending on the residual amount of power (or of 'good' i.e. the capacity to look beyond oneself?) self-reincarnation might occur in due time. After wasting so much Morgoth can not overcome his physical destruction (execution), until the end of times. Ditto for Sauron, weakened by the end of the Ring, after dying in fall of Barad-Dur. Balrogs are probably so spiritually debased that their first death is final.
@@Thurgosh_OG That’s a reasonable supposition but I think it’s inconsistent with what we know of the fate of spirits in the world. You made me consider the entire question-so now you get the questionable benefit of my ruminations… 🌝 Of all the aspects of Tolkien’s mythological history the initial creation of the universe in which the world exists is perhaps the least known. AFAIK there aren’t multiple drafts amended and changed over time, just the one. The pre-valar spirits are amongst the greatest mysteries in Tolkien’s universe; I believe based upon his answers to inquiries “that’s how it should be.” The Valar, who are a part of the world, are more fully known, fleshed out and understood-while still being mysterious and remote. As you know, Melchor’s fate was explicitly revealed but what that means and the implications of said actions-not so much. What is clear, though, it that Melchor wasn’t killed he was expelled by an affirmative act of the Valar. Again, as I believe you know, when Eru created the world and transported his willing spirits into it to manifest the history they sang into existence it was conditioned on being a one-way journey, the only possible exit being the end of the music/world. Removing Melchor from the world meant pushing him into whatever outermost in-between existed. But again, he was alive-contemplating the death of an angelic spirit wasn’t part of the formula! Sauron can’t die; he can be (and was) profoundly diminished. Gandalf/Olórin was deliberately diminished in being incarnated as one of the Istari. When his body was, in fact, killed his spirit apparently returned to Mandos where the Valar took appropriate action. But from that I infer *All* beings have spirits and if they can die those spirits-once separated from bodies-go to Mandos. This structural system would have had to be confirmed by JRRT and AFAIK wasn’t but then, nothing I know of disputes it either; I believe it is the most rational explanation. So what happens to modified maiar that die? Those the good Valar modified in service to Eru can be restored (Olórin’s presumed fate). Those that chose to follow the path of rebellion in defiance of Eru’s plan and will… they still presumably have spirits. To be consistent with what we know, I believe it makes more sense if those spirits (however corrupted) return to Mandos where they essentially are imprisoned until the end of time. What then of Saruman? One of the greater tragedies in the story since he was a good maiar that volunteered to help the Valar in a righteous cause and accepted diminishment as a price for service. He didn’t handle the loss of status well and later, was corrupted by Sauron turning to evil. When he was killed, the scene in which his spirit appears to lean towards the West and is rejected, is symbolically meaningful. But what must have really happened? Clearly the Valar weren’t going to welcome his spirit back and restore him. More likely his spirit goes to Mandos and waits, along with the Balrogs and… Was Sauron in Mandos too? That depends on weather he had a body or the means to maintain his spirit in the world.
There’s something wonderful in the BBC Radio adaptation of this, if you haven’t heard it. Sir Michael Horden plays Gandalf and while his “you cannot pass” doesn’t measure up to Sir Ian MacKellen’s “You! Shall not! Pass!” I do very much enjoy both his “Then fall, spawn of Melkor, fall!” and his “Fly you fools!” echoing up the chasm as he falls away.
@@jachyra9 - Apart from The Exorcist, you just cannot recreate a book scene for scene as a movie. The changes made in The Lord of the Rings are almost all an improvement for the audio/visual medium (ghost army at Pelennor Fields being the exception there).
@@RictusHolloweye - "you just cannot recreate a book scene for scene as a movie" I don't know why you and so many other people like proclaiming this. Because it has nothing to do with anything I said. A literary adaptation doesn't have to be an exact replica of the book in order to sustain fidelity to it. Team Jackson obviously had no interest in doing so to The Lord of the Rings, but that's mostly due to the fact that they didn't understand it.
@@jachyra9 Books can do things movies can't. In the book, the Rohirrim arrive at Minas Tirith, and Tolkein immeidately backs up to follow them to the Pellennor Fields. You can't "back up" in a movie during action sequences.
14:04 Also, depending on how you're holding on, you might not be able to keep your grip, especially if you aren't trained for it. You look at what his fingers have to hold onto, and after being pulled off your feet in the blink of an eye by a fire whip, chances are you're not gonna be holding on for very long. Plus it makes for a more dramatic moment. Otherwise I'm fine with how the movie did things. LoTr isn't an easy book to adapt to film, and after comparing it to the 1978 film (and book), I think PJ and crew did it best (though the 1978 one wasn't bad).
The film's interpretation is cinema so perfect you can taste it. In the theatre, everyone was on the edge of their seats. What an amazing film. Had they tried to handle it differently it wouldn't have had the same impact and it wouldn't be the trilogy we know. The world is a better place for Jackson's interpretation.
@@human678 - No. Peter Jackson did not make anything within the vicinity of masterpieces. He made middling sword and sorcery movies from a brilliant, idiosyncratic novel that is the antithesis of middling sword and sorcery.
There are a couple of other great lines in the book that also didn't make it into the Jackson et al. adaptation, set about an hour after the Company flees the Chamber of Mazarbul but before they get to the bridge: "Arrows fell among them. One struck Frodo and sprang back. Another pierced Gandalf's hat and stuck there like a black feather." "Two great trolls appeared; they bore great slabs of stone, and flung them down to serve as gangways over the fire." Neither scene appears in the film, despite the powerful imagery - one a bit quirky, the other accentuating just how insanely perilous Moria actually is, even before the recognition that a Balrog is in play.
Films are not books, and books are not films. What Tolkien did was a masterpiece. So was Jackson's movies. Neither pales from the existence of the other. That said, thanks for the analysis.
A lot of people don't realize that what works in a book doesn't always work in a movie. With books, the reader's imagination supplies the details, and everyone imagines things a little different. A movie is based off the imaginations of the people making it, the director, script writers, special effects team, etc. And the books have loads of chapters, passages, and songs that simply couldn't be put in a movie or people would be bored. Long scenes of people hiking through forests, mountains, and caves for hours don't make for good drama. Can you imagine trying to include all those interminable songs in the movies? Nobody would watch that and they add nothing to the plot.
@@OliverdeClisson vs what? Guyladriel? Nah. Jackson did a pretty good job converting hundreds of thousands of words into a visual medium. Imho. Just think. It could have been Uwe Boll...
The Moria orcs still shoot arrows after The Felowship when they're at the bidge but it happens after Gandalf falls into the abyss. Right after Frodo screaming no several times, Boromir lifts him to carry away and shouts after Aragorn, who watches in horror when Gandalf falls. Arrows begin to fly and we see Goblin archers fire arrows from the other side of the chasm, which nearly misses him. Aragorn turns back and runs up the stairs to the others to the eastern entrance of Moria.
I don't think orcs and Balrog are on the same side. Neither the Balrog nor the orcs of Moria are under Sauron's command, and it makes sense for orcs to be terrified, just as much as it makes sense for them and Balrog to tolerate each other like in the book. Edit: correction, I think orcs are actually serving Sauron, but the rest of the point stands.
That fits with the movie, but I'm not sure about the books; in the books the balrog works together with the others. Given that the balrog is in Moria and not out helping Sauron or Saruman, not even deliberately guarding Moria against passage, I'd say that the balrog is leading the orcs and trolls, perhaps has gathered them from nearby areas and from the invading forces. They are on the same side in the books, but I'm not sure they're directly serving Sauron.
@@bryandraughn9830 the orcs did hang around to watch that. From a safe distance. That's why they start firing arrows again when Balrog and Gandalf fall.
@@keithklassen5320 they are on the same side in the sense that they are tolerating each other and they are all chasing the fellowship. But the balrog is definitely not leading those orcs and I'm 99% sure that orcs are loyal to Sauron and 100% sure that balrog isn't. I believe balrog recognises them as a creation of Morgoth and that's why he doesn't kill them all. And orcs are just kind of happy for the support he provides at the moment.
The way it was handled in the movie was excellent from the standpoint of cinematography… Strangely, it was one of the scenes that left me the most melancholy about the films… it was done well enough a whole generation of people who saw the movies before reading the books were not be able to create their own image of the Balrog. 😢
When Jackson's Balrog opens its mouth, we see fire (or combustion) akin to that which is underneath a space shuttle as it's 2000 tonne platform-weight gets pushed upwards by 35 million newtons of thrust. THAT'S power!! .....and the visual we get is tremendously satisfying and foreboding. It also makes us realise just how powerful Gandalf must be, especially equipped with "Narya" the ring of fire....shrewdly given to him by Cirdan for Gandalf's, as yet.... unforeseen labours within middle-earth.
Sir, a terrific video; my complements! As for Peter Jackson's on-screen interpretation, I'm OK with most of the changes, but not with the loss of the Wizard Duel between Gandalf and the Balrog (plus a few others). I clearly remember a cheer going up from the crowd in the theater when the four hobbits joined the fight; it's been long enough that I've forgotten many details, but I remember that much. IMO, they all acquitted themselves well - clearly proving that they were not just four loads that needed to be constantly protected - and the changes to Frodo's specific actions did not diminish him. Also - and it really requires stopping the DVD-or-Blu-Ray to see it, but Pippin was the one who stabbed the cave troll in the neck, which caused the troll to open its mouth, thereby enabling Legolas to shoot the kill-shot, which gave Pippin a much-needed opportunity to undo his previous mistake(s). I do believe that Gandalf-vs-Balrog at the chamber door should have been retained. Obviously, an entire hour of walking can't be shown afterwards - practicality demanded time / event compression - but such a display would IMO have been much, much more interesting (and logical) than the collapsing stairway sequence, which just seemed to go on, and on, and on... Also, unlike in the book, we the audience would have seen and heard the duel in real-time, so the expository dialogue from Gandalf, that was necessary in the novel, would have been easily omitted in the movie. Gandalf clutching to the bridge with his fingernails - and then, very clearly letting go - always annoyed me. It annoyed me when I saw the movie for the first time, and it annoys me right now, watching it in your video. I guess that if Sir Ian wanted his dramatic closeup, or if Peter Jackson wanted to give Sir Ian a dramatic closeup, I shouldn't complain; I shouldn't, but I will! IMO the fire-covered-by-hardened-lava effect for the Balrog still works well, even after all of these years, but, entirely in retrospect, I wish that the Balrog would have been depicted as several recent artists have painted; man shaped, but somewhat ill-defined, as if we can't really see under the flames and soot. Also, and it took a while for me to realize this, but the Balrog as filmed was a bit too large to navigate through much of Moria. A troll-sized Balrog - or perhaps a little smaller - would still have been terrifying, particularly with the excellent sound effects that accompanied it.
The Balrog's whip was around Gandalf's leg, no way he could have held on or climbed up when the weight of the Balrog hit the end of the whip. Anyone who grabbed Gandalf to try to pull him up would've gone into the abyss as well.
This is a weird take... As is stated here, the ledge grab did not happen in the books, and your statement is therefore irrelevant. Why discuss the possibility of holding on to gandalf in this context? In the movies, the ledge grab DOES happen, and the whip DOESN'T stay around gandalf's leg, as is clearly visible. It falls along with the balrog almost immediately after staggering Gandalf. The scene is a bit weird. We see gandalf turn away from the bridge's ledge. Therefore, any idea that Gandalf would have willingly leapt after the balrog is absurd, he would have done so immediately if that was the case. Instead, he is grabbed and staggered, tries to climb, calls the fellowship a bunch of poopface idiots and then drops down, when that wasn't his intention earlier. From the movies we're supposed to believe, I guess, that Gandalf changed his mind, or that he felt himself slipping and decided the best course of action now was to fully let go. But neither of these explanations really are clear from the visual text, it is an ad hoc rationalization, not a piece of evidence. Therefore, people are fully justified in finding it a bit strange that Gandalf didn't just pull himself up or allow others to pull him up. Again, the balrog DIDN'T have a hold on Gandalf anymore, watch the scene again if you don't believe me.
@@RedFloyd469 I think the reason they did the Gandalf lines while holding on to the ledge, is because if Gandalf was speaking while falling, screaming to his companions to run away, that would appear comical in a movie. Just imagine it. And with the voice going out as he falls, fly you fooooooollllssss dragging on as he drops out of sight. It would be comical. Another thought I had when Gandalf couldn't hold on to the ledge was that he was too exhausted from the spells and combating the Balrog. Normally he could climb back no problem. But he was tired and wounded, including from the whip.
i think it’s cool the movies and books are different. just watched the movies and i’m really excited to read the books. it’s like experiencing it twice
Gandalf and the Balrog are practically distant cousins; They (and Sauron) were all Maiar (lesser gods) who all had a role in singing the world in to being before there were elves, dwarves or humans. Some Maiar were greater or lesser beings or were so specialized in their interests that they practically became part of the scenery of the world that they were creating.
Frodo getting stabbed by the troll and surviving is actually one of the dumber moments in the movie. Doesn't matter if he's wearing that vest or not, it's loose chainmail. He would have been squished with every bone in his torso shattered.
@@TheAtherion As they've depicted it in the show - loose fitting mail - the stab would have crushed him whatever the material was made of. He's a tiny midget with a loose set of mail around his torso and there's a ten ton troll stabbing him with a huge spear. Due to the laws of physics, he would have literally been pressed like a grape by both sides of his armour.
So not sure where I read this but when they all cross the bridge running away from the foe…they have to do this in single file as the dwarves built the bridge. Perpusfully this way so that when they where invaded their enemy’s could only enter over the bridge one at a time /single file …the sharp eye will notice this in the movie as well as PJ makes an effort to show it …..great world building from Tolkien ! ❤❤❤
"Perfected" implies that his version serves as a better replacement. But it is not. The two are of a different kind. What Jackson did was that he ADAPTED the literary work in a way to make it usable for a movie. And he did that great. I´d say almost perfectly. But that doesnt mean that he perfected it.
This is absolutely my favourite chapter in the book - it's such a short chapter, but the build up and pacing of it brilliantly creates so much tension and fear. It's also probably one of my favourite parts of the films, but the one thing that really bugs me is that they made Durin's Bane appear to be just a mindless monster... The moment would have been much better if the balrog had some sort of evil expression, even.
This sequence showcases the extent to which Jackson destroyed Gimli's character. Gimli is a grim and serious individual, yet Jackson decided to turn him into an Italian soap opera actor. Jackson has Gimli gloating to Legolas about the alleged hospitality of the dwarves one minute, in the kind of hubristic speech that invariably presages disaster, only to have him howl like he's got an infected molar the next when Gandalf's light reveals the dead bodies of dwarves in the caves. Jackson has Gimli behave the same way in the Chamber of Mazarbul. In the book, Gimli's reaction to discovering the fate of Balin is movingly stoic: he pulls up his hood to hide his face. And when they flee the chamber, Legolas has to drag him away from the sarcophagus. Tolkien's Gimli is a character of dignity, one that we can respect. Jackson's Gimli is a drama queen and at times a buffoon.
I have to wonder how much the Dragonlance Chronicles may have influenced the decision to turn Gimli into a clown. Personally I don't hate it, changes have to be made when adapting a book into a movie, but I do prefer the Gimli of the books.
The company’s exit from Lothlorien really shows a different side of Gimli in the books. He along with everyone else is grieving they have to depart, but he really opens his heart to Legolas to share just how painful it is to leave.
I agree, but I don’t lay all of the blame at Jackson’s feet. Some of it is John Rhys-Davies’ fault. He gives an exceptionally hammy performance. I know he has a large personality, but I think it was too much here.
I woulda liked if they had explained the fate of Oin and Ori in Balin's tomb from the book and woulda liked if he handed the book to Gimli, but I kinda prefer the movie version of Gandalf VS the Balrog due to the fact that he, a great powerful and wise wizard, should know it was there, given Saruman knew from the Dwarves' folly and spoke it to him, be it telepathically or in previous years before Saruman's betrayal. Him dreading going in as he knows he might be destined to fight and defeat the Balrog but might lose his life in the process shows Gandalf, for all his angelic power, is still human with feelings of fear. He's scared of going into Moria and yet is willing to if that was Frodo's decision. Also, I know this is getting a bit ahead of this, but I wish the movie gave us the Slime Balrog. Seeing Gandalf swim to shore to catch his breath but then the beast screams as it's flames are slimed over and he fights and chases it up to the top of the mountain where it reignites it's flames woulda been extra awesome.
In the context of the scene, To Fly means to move with great haste. Gandalf is not telling them to use the eagles, nor did he ever have that intent. What he's saying is "Run as fast as you can."
The older I get, the more I despise the movies and the awful unnecessary changes and removal of content from the book. Listening to any of the audio versions (except the terrible one by Andy Serkis) is a thousand times better than watching Jackson's abominations.
Honestly no, they're just as good as anyone could have ever made them. Peter Jackson's trilogy is certainly different from the books but film is a different medium than book so I don't think every single little change he made is sacrilege. Also, you call removal of content from the books "unnecessary"? The extended editions are already TWELVE HOURS LONG, besides Jackson didn't remove anything absolutely essential to the story. Jackson's "abominations" are really decent movies and I for one am grateful that we got them instead of something a lot worse. A lot of time and dedication went into those, and they are not well regarded by most people for nothing. I personally don't love them (they ARE action movies for teenagers) but I can still respect them as works of art.
I first read The Lord of the Rings when I was 11 or 12 years old. I loved it. I also enjoyed the flawed animated version. When the Peter Jackson movies came out I was blown away. Even more so when I watched the extended editions. The Moria scenes gave me chills. Jackson may have chopped and changed thungs but he still gave us Middle Earth.
Despite i love re-discovering how richer are the books, thanks to you series, we have to give back to Peter Jackson that awesome fact that he somehow managed to adapt succesfully a story that had the reputation to be impossible to adapt in movie(s). We're lucky :)
I actually like that the Orcs run from the Balrog in the film. It makes more sense for them to stand at its side yeah, but I kind of like that he’s so terrifyingly powerful that even if he’s on their side his collateral damage output is so much that they’d rather just be completely out of the way.
I think Jackson did a good job of putting it onto the screen with one exception - the stupid stupid stupid crashing stairs - that always pulls me out of the moment - it is more like someone was thinking about "how are we going to make this into a video game" than they were about making a movie
I think i would have liked the counter spell scene to play out, could have been done later in the chase while running from the balrog or such, but it adds a little more to this mighty foe..
Don’t think it’s ever occurred to me before, but while watching this analysis, the thought came to me of a ‘What if…?’ scenario where Glorfindel was part of the Fellowship, and when it gets to the holding the bridge part, him channelling John McClain - “How can the same shit happen to the same elf twice?” 😜
I absolutely love the movie design, and its rightly become iconic and influential, but I do think something was lost by giving it such a definitively monstrous face. It feels less like Gandalf is contending with a dark mirror of what he could've or could become, and more like he's fighting a big ancient creature.
Might have been covered in a previous video, but what struck me about the Moria sequence was how they made the decision to go in the first place. In the book, it was GANDALF'S suggestion and ARAGORN who was vehemently opposed to it. Whereas in the movie it was GIMLI'S with Gandalf opposing. This diminishes Gimli immensely and unfairly, and even Aragon slightly, while elevating Gandalf even further. And... Yeah, hated that!
Discover Tolkien’s Middle Earth in a whole new way! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
I need the third one on audible
I think some of these scenes were replicated from the animated 70's movie.
What you're doing here is great. Something that might make it more effective is using illustrations of characters, when discussing the actual writings. Something about seeing the visual depiction of the movie's version of events, while the book is discussed, makes it difficult for the book's version to register in my brain. Might be just me tho. A Ken Burns style use of illustrations as stills could be very effective, & distinctive. This method would also make it very clear, when U switch from discussing the movie, to discussing the book. It might also be easier to match stills with your monologue. Hope this sounds more like helpful data, than criticism. I haven't read Tolkien in very long time, & being reminded about the differences, is very interesting. Good Luck!
I think the artistic differences make sense for telling a visual story vs a written one.
Gandalf being aware of the Balrog and being uneasy during the scene really validates the eminent threat of the Balrog. Its adds drama and makes the viewer feel the gravity of the Balrog's power level.
While I do wish we could have seen a glimpse of the Balrog represented as a magic wielder/maiar, I think the visuals of the scorching tunnel in the distance, the fleeing of the orcs, and the chaos of the flight of the fellowship, and finally terror of the ancient demon's reveal worked seamlessly. I give this scene a 10/10
It's all about communicating the same basic story in a much more concise way, cutting out unnecessary info, which it did very well. There's so much in the books that is unnecessary for a movie.
one little thing I would have liked to have is instead of it roaring I would have liked to hear it say something along the lines of, "you will die here, wizard" (in the Black Speech of Mordor of course) with the same voice as the roar. yes it would have been hard to understand, and that's okay. it would have shown it is clearly an intelligent being and not a firey rage monster.
The orcs running away wasn't necessarily out of character or nonsensical, either, in my opinion. Just because they were on the same side doesn't mean the orcs wouldn't have been scared every time this thing made an appearance. The Balrog would have regarded them as an inferior beings and wouldn't have hesitated to kill them if they displeased him or if he woke up in a bad mood.
@@ElveeKaye I coul also see them being afraid of being burned just by its presence. I could totally see it swatting them aside like flies just to scare the enemy.
@@ElveeKaye Blarogs and orcs have a long story to fight together for millénia. orcs are in fact mere tools for Balrogs.
I absolutely love the way Sean Bean delivered his line about the cave troll.
This!!!
Which he didn't say in the book and would be highly unlikey to know what a cave troll looked like anyway.
@@Stevie-L-n8g The line was movie-cool, but you are completely right. Not to mention that an Olog-Hai was slain by Pippin at the Morranon, but this single cave Troll held the entire fellowship at the at bay. That is the worst side of Peter Jackson.
I hated that battle scene already in the trailer to the movie, because it was just action for show, instead of a buildup to the great confrontation with the balrog. Less is more sometimes.
Also the "new devilry" line.
That line had me grinning from ear to ear. When I first watched it, my father burst out laughing because he'd had players in his D&D games utter lines just like that.
One of the things I like best in this scene is how it demonstrates the way magic works in LOTR: It states things to be so, and so they are. Gandalf declares that the Balrog cannot pass (shall not in the movie, which is another change) and indeed he cannot. Gandalf states to the Witch King that he cannot enter the city of Gondor and so it is (he gets distracted, true, but still he did not enter the city). Frodo at one point clutches the Ring and declares that if Gollum touches him again, he shall burn in the fires of Mount Doom. Gollum does touch him again, and he does burn in the fires of Mount Doom. Magic literally describes what "is".
My favorite is the deleted scene about the death of Saruman.
Gandalf says "your staff is broken", and immediately Saruman's staff explodes into splinters. He doesn't say, "your staff will break" or "I will break your staff". He's not saying what shall be or really doing anything other than his capacity as an emissary and spokesman for Eru, he is just stating a fact.
The change from "can" to "shall" is excellent - it portrays the Balrog's passing as an act strictly dependent on Gandalf's will.
It shall not pass. Not that it can't - it shall not, while Gandalf wills it so.
That is not how magic works, that is how language works.
@@GholaTleilaxu If I declared "the sky is green", that would not make it true. But in Tolkiens world, if a being with sufficient magical abilities says so then the sky will indeed become green.
@@wanderhillen2435 You are free to declare many things, even "The sky shall _TURN_ green now!" but you don't have enough mana to make it so ;)
Movie is over 20 years old and we're still discussing it. That's huge.
I don't think that's huge at all.
By that logic, discussing a CRAPPY film that was made 20 years ago would also be "huge".
And why would anybody NOT discuss a movie made 20 years ago or more unless it was as amazing as Lord of the Rings? That makes no sense.
It's this same fallacious non-logic that people apply when they say a movie is X years old and therefore spoiler warnings need not be given. Or the classic "how can a movie from X years ago be THIS good?", as if it's youth, not passion, creativity, resources, artistry, talent and good writing that determines whether a movie is good. Apply that fallacy to books and you will rightfully be called a clown.
A better thing to say about lord of the rings (the movies) is that the techniques, actor skill, set design, dress design, visual storytelling and world-building is so amazing that it is essentially timeless. A universal classic. The movie can be a hundred years old and will still essentially be one of, if not THE greatest achievements in filmmaking and a must watch for all humans on the planet.
THAT, I would say, IS huge.
It's a classic, probably a timeless one. I wouldn't be surprised if people still discuss LotR in 100 years like we do "Birth of a Nation," but for better reasons. I suspect it will be considered a cultural high water mark for many, many decades. Since, almost literally everything in the modern era has been polluted by the same kind of the most superficial pro-establishment political messaging imaginable. We are entering into a nigh unprecedented period of political suppression, not only of speech but of thought itself which is already obliterating the quality of new Western cultural artifacts. I don't think the West will rediscover the importance of freedom of speech until a dominant global East has a cultural renaissance based on the global West of twenty years ago and justly mocks the West what it did to itself in this period.
rings of power is awful
@@kohtalainenalias I kinda like it
@kevincanning3051 are you a fan of the extended works of Tolkien, finished by Chris Tolkien that the show draws from? Most of the criticism comes from the fact that the show strays so far from the books. Not in the usual ways, but ways that were actually fairly offensive to the most avaid fans. I happen to be someone who didn't actually enjoy the Silmarillion at all and quite enjoys the show. However, I don't think that's the best way to judge quality. The show *is* bad because it tramples all over the utterly beautifully constructed world JRR Tolkien made. I feel like I'm doing something mildly sacrilegious when I watch it.
Lol relieved. "Oh thank goodness, it's just a Balrog, not my old age. So relieved."
More like "I don´t suck, its just that the enemy is too powerful."
I think it is more so that not knowing what enemy he faces (especially since it is already a threat great enough to catch him off guard) is a greater threat to gandalf than a balrog. imagine being unsure whether whatever just killed you with a counter spell is just a taste of its power, imagine the possibility it may be the Dark Lord himself. the wisdom and knowledge is the wizards magic in a sense, so 'ignorance' in terms of not knowing what is happening is like the opposite or something like that. idk XD
A thing to note about the spell-duel is that when the door explodes the ceiling of the chamber also collapses, which is why it doesn't immediately follow them.
A great many of us had read the books decades before Jackson's take on the tale was filmed. Jackson included. He knew what to commit to film to get the story across and that us old salts could fill in the gaps on our own. The films are fantastic, and the the book is still peerless in print. All Good.
I think it makes much more sense for Frodo to be stabbed by an orc rather than the troll. Even if mithril can stop the troll's spear, it was a shirt. It's flexible. The spear wouldn't have pierced him, but the troll would have broken several ribs, easily. Even with the mithril, Frodo would have had severe internal injuries, so he'd still be dead.
In the book, even with the stab being by an orc instead of a troll, Frodo was still moderately injured, though not dangerously. The book describes Frodo's injuries thus:
"There was a dark and blackened bruise on Frodo's right side and breast. Under the mail, there was a shirt of soft leather, but at one point the rings had been driven through it into the flesh. Frodo's left side also was scored and bruised where he had been hurled against the wall."
@@DamonNomad82 yeah, even in the movie, when we see Frodo shirtless in Cirith Ungol, he has a bruise, but my point was that a troll is so much bigger than an orc. Even if the spear didn't pierce him, he still should have died from the impact.
Jackson's usual taking things way further than necessary...
@@irena4545cope and seethe
I think you have to allow a little "elven rope" in the logic.
I've had the EXACT same issues. There's still a creature three times to size of a gorilla stabbing you on loose chain.
You're forgetting that Jackson isn't filming just for Tolkein fans. He's also telling the story for people who have only the vaguest idea of the books. Yes, there are things he changed, a lot. But he succeeded where Ralph Bakshi failed. And I will always love that he made "Middle-Earth" a character in the movies. The landscapes the cast moves through... so amazing. New Zealand really shines there.
Jackson never succeeded at adapting Tolkien. He only failed at it.
@@jachyra9your talking out of your ass. He did a great job
@@XxassassinhaloxX - No. He did not do a great job. Jackson doesn't understand The Lord of the Rings.
@@jachyra9
What impossible arrogance.
You don't think that maybe it might be *_you_* that failed to understand?
No, that couldn't happen could it? It must be _everyone else_ that's wrong, not you. Never you.
@@stickiedmin6508 - No. It's not arrogance, little one. It's simply reading comprehension. Of course you're putting words in my mouth here: I never said it was italicized everyone else who's wrong. You did. Because baby can't form a cogent argument and feels threatened.
"Why did Gandalf let go instead of waiting for help?"
--people who have never tried holding their entire bodyweight by their fingertips.
As he said, it didn't happen in the book!
plus im sure he figured he had to make sure the balrog was dead...
it's not that hard richard
@@eyesofthecervino3366 Plus the weight of the Balrog! Whip wrapped around legs, Balrog holding on to whip…. Gandalf knew he was toast. That he held n long enough for that “fly you fools” was both epic and, sadly, massively unlikely but it’s a story. Shouted as he fell-more realistic. Of course, I *like* it as written (which Jackson matched in the film). Who wouldn’t? I like it and hate it-almost threw the book across the room the first time I read it. But I was twelve and losing Gandalf was just too personal… 😢
That doesn’t work, he literally fought a demon of fire and darkness for days and killed it, he has superhuman strength, the best explanation for the movie is that he wanted to kill the balrog to get rid of a threat to middle earth rather than being to weak to pull himself up.
Like a lot of key moments in Jackson's trilogy, he chose to accentuate the immediate drama of the moment rather than pay service to Tolkien lore. I think this was the right move, since book readers will sort of automatically fill in the blanks and be rewarded with an objectively awesome representation of the Balrog, while non-readers will simply feel the gravity of a powerful and scary being confronting our heroes. It works on both levels and really shows how much care was put into the adaptation.
Also Jacksons excellent usage of "show don't tell" which simply doesn't apply to books. And let's not pretend that a book-accurate movie would work. The timeframe for instance, between the scene of Frodo receiving the ring and actually leaving the Shire SEVENTEEN YEARS pass. The amount of singing and walkng in the Fellowship was sometimes even too much for me and I read LotR probably a dozen times. Bombadil being the complete wildcard in the otherwise extremely consistant Universe. Et cetera
I do think the counter curse thing would have been an epic moment especially as the movies were so good at making spells sound so powerful and well fankly good to the ear. Like when you hear Saruman doing the spells on the mountain, Arwen with the horse wave or when you hear Sauron is speaking the black speech in the background at Rivendale.
Yes but it would water down the highpoint of the movie, peter jackson wanted it to be an epic last stand battle the likes we have never seen. I think he made a good choice in doing that, and also gandalf being aware of the balrog before moria is better for the movie, because it creates tension and fear and it fits well because of the flashback with saruman where he tells gandalf how the dwarves dug to deep, and unleashed the bane of durin.
Or when Gandalf casts his light from his staff to chase the Nazgul and Fell beasts away from the soldiers fleeing Osgiliath.
@@Hughmongus555 He tells himself, making light of Gandalf's possible route to pass him, not Gandalf.
Wish they would have kept the part from the book where Aragorn brings his sword down on the orc chieftain's head so hard it literally splits his helm (and his head) in half with a shower of white sparks. Fucking epic!
They put the more gory stuff in the extended versions. After all, Newline had to get a rating that would allow kids into the movies during the inital run. Even with violence, there's only so much the raters will allow.
i think the scene where he decapitates an orc early in the battle is inspired by that event.
You know it would have been practical too hahaha
@@hecate235 The entire reason they got around the rating in the first place, is that most of the gorey, brutal scenes happen to fictional creatures (orcs etc.) and the violence on anything human is mild to nonexistant in the theatre cut. Like Chicken above me said, Aragorn still literally decapitates an Orc, he literally skewers Lurtz with his Sword and decapitates him as well, you see the head fucking flying off. There's just not an explosion or a gushing of blood shown. So as long as they would have kept it relatively bloodless on screen, they absolutely could have gotten away with the splitting a head through a helmet scene.
In the book his staff being destroyed is actually critically important to his role as an Istari (Wizard). Scepters are a trope as a symbol of power (hierarchically) especially in English literature, and Tolkien uses staves the same way with the Istari. He was essentially removed from his role the moment they engaged and his staff was broken. In a sense he is relieved from the burden of responsibility as a guide and teacher to the denizens of Middle Earth, and may freely engage with the Balrog. This could be seen as permission granted to him by Eru Iluvatar; if he is no longer burdened by his assigned role he may engage as freely as he chooses with what is essentially a familial being at an equal power level.
When Gandalf the White encounters Saruman a similar thing occurs: "[Gandalf] raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet." This is in a way Gandalf demonstrating that he is there to replace Saruman in his position as head of the Istari. Eru Iluvatar sent them to Middle Earth and their staff is a symbol of that authority. Without it there is none. It is in this way it is that Eru Iluvatar is essentially relinquishing Saruman of his role and installing Gandalf there instead, rather than it being an act of Gandalf upon Saruman. This effective demotion can also be a way to give freedom to Gandalf and punishment to Saruman, where now Gandalf (or Middle Earth itself) is free to decide how to handle him without his authority. Gandalf does do a better job of guidance instead of rule as he later gives that power to the Hobbits during the Scouring of the Shire: "My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.” They then decide how to handle Saruman, as their roles in this world have equalized. (Well, Grima gets to him and they deal with Grima).
In my headcanon, Gandalf didn't even touch any of the stairs, he just rocketed straight down the staircase and landed noseflat before the others. Then he stood up, wiped the dust off and said "Alright, that's done."
Same, although given he was probably facing the door when is exploded, I’ve always imagined he came down backwards, so it’d be the back of his head and shoulders, not his face that would’ve struck the ground at the bottom of the stairs.
Nice video - there's also the passage where Gandalf fights the Balrog after their plummet, and the body of water that breaks their fall turns it into a giant grasping slime monster; Jackson wanted to include this, I think using the idea of cooled lava to depict it, but his budget wouldn't accommodate this - I know this is 2 Towers but it's still Balrog-y - also, it would be interesting to compare Bakshi's version of this encounter as well
Something that wasn't mentioned is that the East Door of the Chamber of Marzabul collapses after the Gandalf and the Balrog fight over it, so they aren't immediately followed. When they get to the large hall they emerge on the other side of the flaming fissure, which the Orcs had meant to trap them before the bridge, than the Orcs had expected, which means that the Orcs can't follow them. The Balrog has two trolls who build a makeshift bridge out of stone slabs across the fissure so he can cross through the flames.
Ah that's the logistics of the scene that always confused me as a kid when I read it. Thank you for laying it out for us! So *that's* why that fire was there, and that's what those trolls were doing.
@@Entertainer114 the makeshift bridge is for orcs and trolls - the Balrog just jumps across the fiery fissure
@@stefanol7814 Yes, you're right, makes sense: a balrog wouldn't need to worry about fire. I just never made the connection as a kid reading these books) between the fire being created as a trap to fence the Fellowship in, and that they surprised the orcs by getting around the fire via the large hall on another level.
exactly, and also Gandalf commented that they got lucky to go through the Chamber of Marzabul. Otherwise they would get ambushed by those orcs.
One of the coolest scenes in the movie for me was how massive the balrog was to them, but then how small it looked in comparison as they were falling from the hole into the water deep below. The sense of scale was amazing.
I can understand why they cut it out of the movie (trying to make it a more tense, fast-paced chase scene and all), but the mystery of the counterspell that nearly broke Gandalf leading up to the big reveal that it was a Balrog, which is a big deal considering they were essentially Morgoth's praetorian guards from the First Age, all along is a much better buildup than just having the Orcs run away from the "big, buff fire monster."
the entry of the Balrog on the bridge is still hard af! i remember being in the cinema and being totaly blown away by the visuals and the amazing sound design, still holds up ver well today!
I doubt Gandalf was thinking, "I guess it's my destiny to kill the Balrog." He was just doing his best to stay alive, and staying alive meant hewing the Balrog until one of them was dead.
Once he encountered the Balrog, he could not leave an evil miar with that much power behind. His entire purpose in middle earth was to destroy these.
Gandalfs agenda wasnt just to end Saurons reign, it was to secure the world for the "mortal" peoples. The events of the hobbit were triggered by him to take out the dragon, so he cant join forces with Sauron, and he also chose to take the Balrog out of the equation for the same reason.
I so wish we'd gotten the Balrog depicted as a shadowy Maia, doing the entire "drawing itself up to great height" mirroring what Gandalf does in Bag End when he admonishes Bilbo for accusing him of trying to steal the ring.
It's like in Dark Souls. It's not the giant boss that frightens you. It's the one that's close to your size.
Wish they hadn't been so determined to remove all evidence of Frodo being a badass from the films.
To be fair, if you pay attention, he gets hits and kills in here and there. He also saves Sam a number of times. I think the biggest offender is the Weathertop scene, but I understand why they did it.
Another change that isn't mentioned, is the chasm of fire. In the books, the Orcs try to corral the fellowship onto the wrong side of the chamber, separated from the bridge by the fissure that crosses the entire chamber. But the Fellowship doesn't go the way the Orcs planned, so they come out on the right side of the fissure. The Orcs then find themselves trapped on the wrong side, and need to create bridges which buys the Fellowship some time to escape.
That's some real life stuff, military planning hardly ever seem to work the way it is envisioned and you have to adapt to the circumstances as they unfold.
Balrog would win this fight without much struggle, however, the odds became increasingly against him, when he fell, which not only badly damaged him, but extinguished his fire.
Gothmog, the lord of Balrogs, literally drowned in a huge fountain. Durin's Bane survived the fall into the abyss lake.
I'd say Gandalf won because the Balrog got extremely weary due to elemental hazards. It's not to downplay Gandalf's bravery and strength, but to highlight how monstrous Bane was.
thats a good point. Furthermore, Gandalf does not try to fight the Balrog until he gets to the bridge.
@@MrChickennugget360 It makes sense that he would chose a chokepoint. He basically did the same thing at the door.
I am pretty sure Gothmog and Ecthelion fell off Gondolin walls to their deaths.
@@thedarkone9552 There is a known unknown here: Gandalf wielding Narya in addition to what Ainur powers he retained had mastery over fire. Could he have extinguished the Balrog’s fire? Turned it down? Shielded himself from it? I believe they are all possible-to some degree-but have no way of knowing to what degree. And then there is the matter of divine (Valar) intervention. No doubt both Gandalf and the Balrog were exhausted when they emerged on the mountaintop and the Balrog burst anew into flame. To my mind it is credible that Gandalf, on the righteous side, might have received a vital boost from Manwë/Varda allowing him to prevail. Mind you, nothing I know of **says** this happened but nothing says it didn’t-what we know is Gandalf fought, killed his enemy, then died. Then was sent back (which meant his body HAD to have been healed to some extent) with a new staff, new powers, adjusted mission. That strongly suggests to me that ALL the Istari were being watched-but only Gandalf remained true. (Though at least Radagast didn’t fall into evil). So Gandalf went from stalemate to victor. What changed?
I love that you were able to dig this deeply and mine so much material without actually dealing with the "do Balrogs have wings" controversy!
@@Wyrmwould if he had wings, after the bridge collapse he would have flown back up and attacked the rest of the Fellowship.
@@jimvaiknoras7822 Yes, I know all the arguments. I participated in a debate many years ago. I won't reveal which side I argued on. I also debated whether Tolkien's elves have pointed ears and whether The Silmrillion is canonical. Again, I won't reveal the sides I took.
What do you mean? He just read the books like everyon else!
@@Stevie-L-n8g I guess you missed my puns.
@@jimvaiknoras7822 Ostriches have wings. If someone knocked them off a bridge could they fly back up? Balrogs.Have.Wings
I like the giant flame beast of the movies but I also like the book's more wizard-like, man-shaped demon wrapped in wings of shadow. This, like the book's ringwraiths, would have been harder to visualize on film though.
Oh for sure, big buff fire monster is super epic. 🔥
@@factorfantasyweekly agreed. By the way, keep up the spectacular work! God bless you!
Wizard like? The description in the book says nothing of the sort.
@@maximus3160 I didn't mean he was like an Istari. But the book calls him man-shaped and he used magic with intelligence and wasn't just a brute monster. In fact there is a lot of debate about whether he had actual wings or if the wings were only shadows
His great entry was such a badass moment it's already edgy, but awesome nonetheless.
IIRC, in the book, when Gandalf is spelling the door shut, and the Balrog, as yet unrecognized, uses a counter spell, not just the door fails. The room beyond caves in, which, in fact, provides time for the company to continue its escape through Moria unopposed for a time.
My favorite part of the extended edition appendices is when they talk about the scene of the Fellowship running down the stairs in Moria. Apparently, the whole 5 min sequence was never scripted, and the actual screenplay never said anything but "the Fellowship run down some stairs." Which means the "Nobody tosses a Dwarf" line was a total ad lib. Thank you John Rys Davies.
And then later on, he sheepishly asks to be tossed onto a wall during the attack on Helm's Deep. 😆
Not being scripted doesn't mean that something is "total ad lib".
Great video, great channel. Thanks. It's not often these days I run into a channel that is obviously not AI, has good content, and doesn't put ads every 3 minutes through the video. This is how creators should make their channels.
I think Gandalf almost certainly would've been outmatched by Durin's Bane, but for the fact that he was wielding a ring of power, Narya.
You have to wonder, being near crippled as a Maia by his Istari state and then augmented by Narya he was still no match for Saruman the White until he had returned from the dead. It was probably the addition of Glamdring that was most important to making it a fairer fight as the Balrog appears to have lost his weapons once he hit the water but Gandalf did not (in the books).
I very much like the change that orcs run away from the Balrog. Yes, they are technically on the "side of evil", but this little detail shows the Balrog as a great, wild, primal force of evil, that rarely cares about sides when it lays destruction in its path. If even the orcs are scared of it, it suddenly isn't just "bigger bad guy", it's something completely new, unpredictable, mysterious, ancient and dangerous beyond rhyme or reason.
The movies are great and I absolutely love the books which I have read at least 12 times over the last 57 years. I feel there is one major location change from these chapters and the movies and that is Moria itself. The movies show Moria as dirty, dull, dim and rough hewn. For example in your script you describe the fellowship running down a corridor of pillars. It wasn't simply pillars it was a meticulously carved replica of Loren, down to the individual leaves. When I first read the books at age 13 I was left was a sense of how truly bad ass Dwarven craftsmanship was. It was not only beautiful, but reflective, polished, insanely detailed, reflective light beaming throughout and made to endure the ages. When I read the books I'm left with a sense of how much the Dwarves have lost, not just wealth, they lost their homeland and the holy land that was gifted to them by the Valor. A place of beauty, wonder and riches.
the Moria sequence really was what sold me with the books when i was a kid.
First the western side is a maze of tunnels, wells, passage ways winding in a "bewildering" array. then after the Guard room the move along a wide and well made "high way" then they get to the "habitable parts" with great pillared halls and windows on the side of the mountain.
This analysis shows me that PJ knew how to be both a great fan of the lore and direct a great movie. I can't imagine the events playing out any different than he ahowed them. Masterpiece. Absolute masterpiece.
The scene with The Fellowship didn' really happen the way it did in the script. The script just said "The Fellowship ran down the stairs of Khazad-Düm". It got extended thanks to Peter Jackson seeing a drawing that conceptual artist Alan Lee had done of the stairs, which had a break in the stair. That gave him the idea of having an action sequence there with the orcs shooting arrow at them while they jumped and so on. They made a pre-viz of the scene (one thing that they didn't use from it was at the beginning of the stairs when Frodo runs the first set, he almost stumbles and nearly falls off the edge and nearly drops The Ring but Aragorn managed to grab him and Frodo catches The Ring in time) which they show to the actors before they shot it (which was on the last day of Principle Photography at the end of 2000, just before the Christmas break). Gimli's line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" was in fact made AFTER he did the "Toss me" scene in The Two Towers. Also, the "Not the beard" line was an improvisation of John Rhys-Davies as he shouted it to Orlando Bloom, as he was concerned that he would rip John's beard off his face, which would take 40 mintues for the makeup team to reapply. Peter Jackson found the line comical, hence why it got stuck in the movie.
that scene with the crumbling masonry is complete invention for the film and frankly spoils it..likewise the beard episode. All very Indiana Jones
@@talstory No, it doesn't. It enhances the action and the pace plus one comedic moment before everything goes down the tubes when Gandalf falls.
@@talstory Remember that a film is a visual medium. A lot of things are good in a novel, and don't do well on the screen, and vice versa. The flight on the stairs scene makes perfect sense to me for a film adaptation. The part that I didn't like was the beard scene, as it further solidifies Gimli's Sesame Street goofy/comic relief change.
My only problem with the stair scene is that nobody believes that Frodo and really also Aragorn are going to die at this point, so it falls flat. They should have had Boromir and Pippin's lives hang in the balance, that would have been much more impactful (especially since in the movie it's sort of Pippin's fault that they are in this situation).
True, but the pressure at that point comes from Durin's Bane being hot on their tails. It's a time bomb -style of scene with a puzzle, outside interference and a fuse. @@magiv4205
You clearly don't get as many views as you deserve. All your videos are top notch great analysis of the written word and the visualized saga.
Also the Balrog isn't described as having horns or actual wings. Its shadows protruded from its form "like wings".
Yeah the book balrog is really different. It has a mane as well and is described as a large man made of shadow with fire wreathed around it with only the tips of the mane on fire.
@@jotnarymir1393Not a large man. It says it’s “man-like” in stature but far greater in size. And Tolkien left it very vague. Because he allows his work to be left up to interpretation.
It’s referred to as a demon. And in the Silmarillion, it’s stated that they are demonic looking in nature. So having horns and wings isn’t out of the question.
@@Shadowrulzalways First, nowhere in Silmarillion or any other writing, are balrogs described as having wings (or horns), though there are frequent references to fangs or claws. Second, while the description of Durin's Bane doesn't give much detail, it does say "shadow like wings", meaning, no real wings, just shadow that stretches wide. Third, Durin's Bane is the second balrog we know about that is killed by being thrown from an elevated place, which really doesn't make sense for a winged creature, unless they are a penguin or ostrich. Fourth, being a demon means absolutely nothing about their physiognomy.
@@irena4545 Fifth: Nobody cares. Settle down.
@@irena4545 First, I said in the Silmarillion, they are described as demonic. Never once said that they are depicted having wings or not. Or horns. I said it’s more plausible as being demonic means it fits the bill. And yes, being a demon does matter in their physical apparence.
Second, stop being uptight and grow up.
The balrog was a beast that gandolf solo’s. It was character development showing how Gandalf was more than we perceive. Legolas nor Aragorn could do the same. Gandalf is the anchor and he arrives precisely as he means.
“You cannot pass”Gandalf says “You cannot pass” in the books
In spanish dub of the movie he says "you cannot pass"
I thought to comment on tis too.
Havin say that, Sir Ian McKellen’s “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!” is unsurpassable & I wouldn’t haf Peter Jackson do it any other way
Gandalf says both cannot and shall not in the film
@@TheAlmostGothic he does, I had forgotten. he referenced the line as he breaks the bridge in the book in correctly. Great scene in the movie and my understanding is McKellan simply said the line wrong
The movie version is more appropriate visually and dramatically. In the book he doesn't shout it, but states it as a fact, since that is how Maiar magic works. It's not usually fire bolts and flashy, but just changing how the reality is in the world. Another example more true to the book's concept is Gandalf telling Saruman that his staff is broken, and it breaks, or when he tries to release Theoden from the aging spell. So with the balrog, he was just setting up something similar to the door spell where the balrog wouldn't be able to go further.
The point where they identify the Balrog, Gimli also names it Durin's Bane, which is the name it's been known by ever since it brought about the ruin of Khazad-Dum. And, of course, Legolas calls it a Balrog of Morgoth, and Gandalf says, "Now I understand."
Staying closer to Tolkien's work would have required a TV series as long as Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, Amazon isn't giving us that.
Or one movie per "book". The LOTR are in three volumes but each volume is divided into 2 books.
Amazon doesn't have the rights to The Silmarillion, so it makes sense that it breaking the lore
Also worth noting, while Gandalf didn't dare enter Moria in the movie, in the book its totally opposite he wanted to explore the mines as it both his destiny also to give the hobbit a view of their life as the architecture of the mines and ancient dwarven kingdom of Moria and gives Frodo a chance to learn about the Mithril as he wear one just now. And Aragorn with the ability of foreseen the future saw a terrible incident will happen while they explore the mines.
One thing that I find interesting is that Gullom was trying to get west to find shire and baggins and then in moria he is lost and nearly starved till he sees the Fellowship and follows the out the way he came
He didn't know it was in the West, he was just going that way!
@user-nz6dx2fj6h he didn't, but I think he guessed it may be that way. Or be drawn there. Sauron releases him so that his spies can follow him.
I think there's an element of terror and horror to the idea of the balrog approaching the door kind of mysteriously, things going quiet, and them kind of struggling against each other for a moment before Gandalf is NEARLY KILLED with magic. It reads SO DIFFERENTLY that it's a totally different scene. It would no longer be a huge action sequence.
The sealing of the tomb door and the counterspell by the Balrog, sending Gandalf falling through the stairs to the fellowship, is legitedly one of the most sad frustrating book to cinema changes I endured in my life.
Really? You must have a seriously limited amount of experiences with book-to-film adaptations.
Me too. I think there much more potential in the book version. The movie one makes no sense here, There the Balrog actually saves them from the orcs.
Agree. The surprise of Gandalf in discovering what he was facing makes sense in the book. In the movie he knows what is waiting and still leads the group inside the mines. I can imagine the entire group wanting to berate Gandalf if he had survived for failing to mention the tiny detail of what they might have to face.
i actually really liked Gandalf knowing about the balrog prior. Gandalf in the movies was sort of a father figure to the group. he was the wise leader who could be turned to in a crisis. to have a rock solid character like that terrified of a yet unseen foe serves to add just that much more gravitas to the scene. when the demon is finally revealed, it does not disappoint. the only change i might have added was a few lines from the balrog itself to distinguish it as a true malevolent intelligence capable of it's own will rather than more of a beast or a force of nature as depicted in the movies. it would have been so menacing to have had the balrog whisper one of Gandalf's ancient names, challenging him to fight, which would have also added more of a reason for Gandalf to pursue the demon into the deep.
Sir Ian McKellan's iconic "you shall not pass" is simply one of the best line reads of all time
Wow thanks! You reminded me why I read those books so many times before seeing the movies. Now, I'm stuck with a tainted memory and haven't touched them since.
Gandalf: I've met my match and have nearly been destroyed... I'm rather shaken.
I am shocked that anybody asks the question "why didn't Gandalf just climb back up onto the bridge?" as if that was a choice. Why doesn't anybody who falls off of a ledge just choose to climb back up? Gravity is not a choice. You fall because you're unable to climb back up. He was exhausted from the fight already, and he is an old man after all. Just because you can catch the edge of a ledge as you're falling doesn't mean you're capable of climbing back up. Life is not a video game. I video games, you can always climb up a ledge easily, not because it's easy, but because they didn't program any game mechanics for what happens when you fall. They make it look really easy in video games, but it's not so easy in reality.
I think the reason they did the Gandalf lines while holding on to the ledge, is because if Gandalf was speaking while falling, screaming to his companions to run away, that would appear comical in a movie. Just imagine it. And with the voice going out as he falls, fly you fooooooollllssss dragging on as he drops out of sight. It would be comical.
Another thought I had when Gandalf couldn't hold on to the ledge was that he was too exhausted from the spells and combating the Balrog. Normally he could climb back no problem. But he was tired and wounded, including from the whip.
I read the books once a year for 10-15 years. But the movies are VERY cool. And a great adaptation! I love it!
How are they a great adaptation?
@@jachyra9 Because someone took the stores seriously. I read the books in 1997. And I had no visabile component to the love of the books. The "Hobbit" and tje "Lord of the Rings" cartoons were ok. But nobody looked at them seriously. I just love that some writer / director took the source material seriously.
@@lonnieeastin6401 - Team Jackson didn't take the stories seriously. They didn't even understand them.
@@jachyra9 I guess your opinion is in the minority. Considering the 12 Oscar nominations for Return of the King. Apparently some people thought they were pretty good. Oh, and I had a typo. It was 1977 when I first read them. I was 7 years old. And I read them at least once a year for at least 10 years... while playing DND.
@@lonnieeastin6401 - "I guess your opinion is in the minority."
How do you know this exactly? And even if it is, what difference would that make? It doesn't make my opinion invalid.
"Considering the 12 Oscar nominations for Return of the King."
The Oscars aren't bestowed based on the quality of the film. Everyone knows this, or should, by now. The members of the Academy don't even watch the films they nominate, and I have no doubt that none of them at the time ever read The Lord of the Rings. You, like all those you believe whose opinions constitute a majority, are attempting to defend a literary adaptation based on trophies doled out by a very small group of people who don't care about the film you care about. Think about that.
"Apparently some people thought they were pretty good."
Good for those some people. You have epically failed to form a cogent argument.
" I was 7 years old. And I read them at least once a year for at least 10 years... while playing DND."
Okay. I've been rereading The Lord of the Rings every year since 1982. The same year I started playing D&D. There is no such thing as "DND."
In the books, it’s actually professor quarrel who warns the fellowship of the troll in the dungeon.
This is a good example of how one writes for reading and another for cinematic effect.
Having read the books several times, I do remember much of what your cover here or are reminded as you narrate. I remember him being weakened by the counter spell for example. The power of the visual media is strong and what I recall from the movies is what first comes to mind in most cases. Impressive movie making on Jackson's part. This tells me it is time for a fresh reading of the books. 👍
I think it is important when we compare Peter Jackson's LotR to Tolkein that we remember that Tolkein wrote a book, not a screen play. He had no skill in writing movie scripts and made no effort to make his books work well on a movie screen.
And?
@@jachyra9 There's no "and". Movies are not books.
No author has screenplay In mind while writing a book.
in the book, I think the line was actually "You will not pass!" it's amazing that changing ONE word, makes the movie's quote so much more epic !
Gandalf: "Someone made a counterspell on me... Did the Hobbit leaf really clouded my mind?"
Legolas: "Oi! A Balrog!"
Gandalf: "Oh thank Eru it's him, not me!"
But in all seriousness, I kinda like how movie made Moria to feel. Dark hallways where once life was, where any unnecessary noise can doom their travel. In the book's "Fool of a Took" moment, they just carried on, meanwhile in the movie it is shown why exactly they tried to be quiet as possible and even risking to give more light. And a rest during escape from Moria would break the intense pacing of the moment in the movie.
Also, isn't it a common knowledge that Balrog was the reason why Dwarf colonies in Moria were doomed? And even if it's just Dwarf knowledge (which evident by Legolas. A WOOD Elf recognized the creature, not the Wizard), Gandalf definitely knew of history of Moria but was more afraid of Orcs than of Balrog? Doesn't really make sence to me, tbh.
key word, a wood *elf*. elves fought the balrogs before in the war of wrath, and they where legendary minions of morgoth. in fact, legolas calls it a "balrog of morgoth" correctly. glorfindel (cut from the movie) died the first time fighting one. add that elves live forever if not killed, a few eyewitnesses remained and would have told stories-heck, glorfindel may have told the tale in rivendel some time. Gimli knew it was "durin's bane", but couldn't name it beyond it being the legendary scary thing. Gandalf did recognize it when prompted "a baelrog.... what an evil fate this is, and I am already wearied!" keep in mind, that may well be the LAST of the 7-8 baelrogs that ever existed. while gandalf was literally there at the music of the ainuir when the baelrogs where formed/recruited by melkor and his discord, it's been 20-30K years since he may have personally seen one. his speech on the bridge is a divine rebuke of the monster, correctly calling it "flame of udûn". so he knows, but he didn't get a good look at it in the chamber and was badly shocked by the counterspell it fired. he may have suspected what it was and hoped he was wrong.
legolas, by comparison, has very sharp eyes and has heard these stories as legend for years. his dad is 6.5K - 7K years old, which means he could have been a child at the end of the first age, just barely. (6-7K years ago). thus, he may have have had stories to tell his son legolas.
@@ShotesuPresumably Melchor had followers amongst the maiar-in addition to Sauron. It would be from those that he made the modifications (presumably permanent) that turned them into Balrogs. How many? Dunno but you’re right, it’s a finite number and reason suggests it probably is a small number (though not necessarily less than a dozen). My question is what happens to the spirit (fëa) of the original maia-if ainur/maiar have spirits in any way comparable to Ilúvatar’s children. But I fear that answer died with the author…
@@joerosenman3480 The dead spirits of Balrogs go into the Darkness Beyond, awaiting the end of times, just like Melkor did.
@@joerosenman3480 the spirit is trapped into the adopted body until the latter gets destroyed. Then depending on the residual amount of power (or of 'good' i.e. the capacity to look beyond oneself?) self-reincarnation might occur in due time. After wasting so much Morgoth can not overcome his physical destruction (execution), until the end of times. Ditto for Sauron, weakened by the end of the Ring, after dying in fall of Barad-Dur. Balrogs are probably so spiritually debased that their first death is final.
@@Thurgosh_OG That’s a reasonable supposition but I think it’s inconsistent with what we know of the fate of spirits in the world. You made me consider the entire question-so now you get the questionable benefit of my ruminations… 🌝
Of all the aspects of Tolkien’s mythological history the initial creation of the universe in which the world exists is perhaps the least known. AFAIK there aren’t multiple drafts amended and changed over time, just the one. The pre-valar spirits are amongst the greatest mysteries in Tolkien’s universe; I believe based upon his answers to inquiries “that’s how it should be.” The Valar, who are a part of the world, are more fully known, fleshed out and understood-while still being mysterious and remote.
As you know, Melchor’s fate was explicitly revealed but what that means and the implications of said actions-not so much. What is clear, though, it that Melchor wasn’t killed he was expelled by an affirmative act of the Valar. Again, as I believe you know, when Eru created the world and transported his willing spirits into it to manifest the history they sang into existence it was conditioned on being a one-way journey, the only possible exit being the end of the music/world. Removing Melchor from the world meant pushing him into whatever outermost in-between existed. But again, he was alive-contemplating the death of an angelic spirit wasn’t part of the formula!
Sauron can’t die; he can be (and was) profoundly diminished. Gandalf/Olórin was deliberately diminished in being incarnated as one of the Istari. When his body was, in fact, killed his spirit apparently returned to Mandos where the Valar took appropriate action. But from that I infer *All* beings have spirits and if they can die those spirits-once separated from bodies-go to Mandos. This structural system would have had to be confirmed by JRRT and AFAIK wasn’t but then, nothing I know of disputes it either; I believe it is the most rational explanation.
So what happens to modified maiar that die? Those the good Valar modified in service to Eru can be restored (Olórin’s presumed fate). Those that chose to follow the path of rebellion in defiance of Eru’s plan and will… they still presumably have spirits. To be consistent with what we know, I believe it makes more sense if those spirits (however corrupted) return to Mandos where they essentially are imprisoned until the end of time.
What then of Saruman? One of the greater tragedies in the story since he was a good maiar that volunteered to help the Valar in a righteous cause and accepted diminishment as a price for service. He didn’t handle the loss of status well and later, was corrupted by Sauron turning to evil. When he was killed, the scene in which his spirit appears to lean towards the West and is rejected, is symbolically meaningful. But what must have really happened? Clearly the Valar weren’t going to welcome his spirit back and restore him. More likely his spirit goes to Mandos and waits, along with the Balrogs and… Was Sauron in Mandos too? That depends on weather he had a body or the means to maintain his spirit in the world.
There’s something wonderful in the BBC Radio adaptation of this, if you haven’t heard it. Sir Michael Horden plays Gandalf and while his “you cannot pass” doesn’t measure up to Sir Ian MacKellen’s “You! Shall not! Pass!” I do very much enjoy both his “Then fall, spawn of Melkor, fall!” and his “Fly you fools!” echoing up the chasm as he falls away.
Hard to fault the movies on the Moria episode. It’s flawless. Stunning dramatic action.
Oh, there's a lot of fault.
@@jachyra9 - Apart from The Exorcist, you just cannot recreate a book scene for scene as a movie. The changes made in The Lord of the Rings are almost all an improvement for the audio/visual medium (ghost army at Pelennor Fields being the exception there).
@@RictusHolloweye - "you just cannot recreate a book scene for scene as a movie"
I don't know why you and so many other people like proclaiming this. Because it has nothing to do with anything I said. A literary adaptation doesn't have to be an exact replica of the book in order to sustain fidelity to it. Team Jackson obviously had no interest in doing so to The Lord of the Rings, but that's mostly due to the fact that they didn't understand it.
@@jachyra9 Books can do things movies can't. In the book, the Rohirrim arrive at Minas Tirith, and Tolkein immeidately backs up to follow them to the Pellennor Fields. You can't "back up" in a movie during action sequences.
@@hecate235 - I have no idea what the hell you're arguing or why you're arguing with me.
14:04 Also, depending on how you're holding on, you might not be able to keep your grip, especially if you aren't trained for it. You look at what his fingers have to hold onto, and after being pulled off your feet in the blink of an eye by a fire whip, chances are you're not gonna be holding on for very long. Plus it makes for a more dramatic moment. Otherwise I'm fine with how the movie did things. LoTr isn't an easy book to adapt to film, and after comparing it to the 1978 film (and book), I think PJ and crew did it best (though the 1978 one wasn't bad).
The film's interpretation is cinema so perfect you can taste it. In the theatre, everyone was on the edge of their seats. What an amazing film. Had they tried to handle it differently it wouldn't have had the same impact and it wouldn't be the trilogy we know. The world is a better place for Jackson's interpretation.
😂
Exactly. Not every movie adaptation has to be a carbon copy.
@@human678 - No literary adaptation has ever been a carbon copy.
@@jachyra9 True, you get the point though. Peter Jackson made absolute masterpieces.
@@human678 - No. Peter Jackson did not make anything within the vicinity of masterpieces. He made middling sword and sorcery movies from a brilliant, idiosyncratic novel that is the antithesis of middling sword and sorcery.
There are a couple of other great lines in the book that also didn't make it into the Jackson et al. adaptation, set about an hour after the Company flees the Chamber of Mazarbul but before they get to the bridge:
"Arrows fell among them. One struck Frodo and sprang back. Another pierced Gandalf's hat and stuck there like a black feather."
"Two great trolls appeared; they bore great slabs of stone, and flung them down to serve as gangways over the fire."
Neither scene appears in the film, despite the powerful imagery - one a bit quirky, the other accentuating just how insanely perilous Moria actually is, even before the recognition that a Balrog is in play.
Films are not books, and books are not films. What Tolkien did was a masterpiece. So was Jackson's movies. Neither pales from the existence of the other. That said, thanks for the analysis.
🙄
@@jachyra9Shut those eyes.
@@lightborn9071 - 🙄
A lot of people don't realize that what works in a book doesn't always work in a movie. With books, the reader's imagination supplies the details, and everyone imagines things a little different. A movie is based off the imaginations of the people making it, the director, script writers, special effects team, etc. And the books have loads of chapters, passages, and songs that simply couldn't be put in a movie or people would be bored. Long scenes of people hiking through forests, mountains, and caves for hours don't make for good drama. Can you imagine trying to include all those interminable songs in the movies? Nobody would watch that and they add nothing to the plot.
@@ElveeKaye - Sophistry.
Gandalf yelling "Fly you fool" while falling is unintentionally hilarious
Jackson did a good job imho.
this incompetent amateur ruined the trilogy by removing aragorns 1v1 fight vs sauron at the black gate.
@@OliverdeClisson vs what? Guyladriel?
Nah. Jackson did a pretty good job converting hundreds of thousands of words into a visual medium. Imho.
Just think. It could have been Uwe Boll...
The Moria orcs still shoot arrows after The Felowship when they're at the bidge but it happens after Gandalf falls into the abyss. Right after Frodo screaming no several times, Boromir lifts him to carry away and shouts after Aragorn, who watches in horror when Gandalf falls. Arrows begin to fly and we see Goblin archers fire arrows from the other side of the chasm, which nearly misses him. Aragorn turns back and runs up the stairs to the others to the eastern entrance of Moria.
If you think Peter Jackson's version was different, wait until you see Amazon's version😆
Seeing how powerful this balrog was i shudder to think what the elves went through in the first age when there were dozens of these things.
I don't think orcs and Balrog are on the same side. Neither the Balrog nor the orcs of Moria are under Sauron's command, and it makes sense for orcs to be terrified, just as much as it makes sense for them and Balrog to tolerate each other like in the book. Edit: correction, I think orcs are actually serving Sauron, but the rest of the point stands.
Besides it was hilarious to see all the orcs bail. Not even hanging around to watch that.😅
That fits with the movie, but I'm not sure about the books; in the books the balrog works together with the others. Given that the balrog is in Moria and not out helping Sauron or Saruman, not even deliberately guarding Moria against passage, I'd say that the balrog is leading the orcs and trolls, perhaps has gathered them from nearby areas and from the invading forces. They are on the same side in the books, but I'm not sure they're directly serving Sauron.
@@bryandraughn9830 the orcs did hang around to watch that.
From a safe distance.
That's why they start firing arrows again when Balrog and Gandalf fall.
@@keithklassen5320 they are on the same side in the sense that they are tolerating each other and they are all chasing the fellowship. But the balrog is definitely not leading those orcs and I'm 99% sure that orcs are loyal to Sauron and 100% sure that balrog isn't. I believe balrog recognises them as a creation of Morgoth and that's why he doesn't kill them all. And orcs are just kind of happy for the support he provides at the moment.
The way it was handled in the movie was excellent from the standpoint of cinematography… Strangely, it was one of the scenes that left me the most melancholy about the films… it was done well enough a whole generation of people who saw the movies before reading the books were not be able to create their own image of the Balrog. 😢
When Jackson's Balrog opens its mouth, we see fire (or combustion) akin to that which is underneath a space shuttle as it's 2000 tonne platform-weight gets pushed upwards by 35 million newtons of thrust. THAT'S power!! .....and the visual we get is tremendously satisfying and foreboding. It also makes us realise just how powerful Gandalf must be, especially equipped with "Narya" the ring of fire....shrewdly given to him by Cirdan for Gandalf's, as yet.... unforeseen labours within middle-earth.
Sir, a terrific video; my complements! As for Peter Jackson's on-screen interpretation, I'm OK with most of the changes, but not with the loss of the Wizard Duel between Gandalf and the Balrog (plus a few others).
I clearly remember a cheer going up from the crowd in the theater when the four hobbits joined the fight; it's been long enough that I've forgotten many details, but I remember that much. IMO, they all acquitted themselves well - clearly proving that they were not just four loads that needed to be constantly protected - and the changes to Frodo's specific actions did not diminish him. Also - and it really requires stopping the DVD-or-Blu-Ray to see it, but Pippin was the one who stabbed the cave troll in the neck, which caused the troll to open its mouth, thereby enabling Legolas to shoot the kill-shot, which gave Pippin a much-needed opportunity to undo his previous mistake(s).
I do believe that Gandalf-vs-Balrog at the chamber door should have been retained. Obviously, an entire hour of walking can't be shown afterwards - practicality demanded time / event compression - but such a display would IMO have been much, much more interesting (and logical) than the collapsing stairway sequence, which just seemed to go on, and on, and on... Also, unlike in the book, we the audience would have seen and heard the duel in real-time, so the expository dialogue from Gandalf, that was necessary in the novel, would have been easily omitted in the movie.
Gandalf clutching to the bridge with his fingernails - and then, very clearly letting go - always annoyed me. It annoyed me when I saw the movie for the first time, and it annoys me right now, watching it in your video. I guess that if Sir Ian wanted his dramatic closeup, or if Peter Jackson wanted to give Sir Ian a dramatic closeup, I shouldn't complain; I shouldn't, but I will!
IMO the fire-covered-by-hardened-lava effect for the Balrog still works well, even after all of these years, but, entirely in retrospect, I wish that the Balrog would have been depicted as several recent artists have painted; man shaped, but somewhat ill-defined, as if we can't really see under the flames and soot. Also, and it took a while for me to realize this, but the Balrog as filmed was a bit too large to navigate through much of Moria. A troll-sized Balrog - or perhaps a little smaller - would still have been terrifying, particularly with the excellent sound effects that accompanied it.
Yeah but that audience was immature Americans who will cheers at anything. Even a Star Wars film!
The Balrog's whip was around Gandalf's leg, no way he could have held on or climbed up when the weight of the Balrog hit the end of the whip. Anyone who grabbed Gandalf to try to pull him up would've gone into the abyss as well.
not to mention that the second part of the bridge collapsed not long after.
This is a weird take...
As is stated here, the ledge grab did not happen in the books, and your statement is therefore irrelevant. Why discuss the possibility of holding on to gandalf in this context?
In the movies, the ledge grab DOES happen, and the whip DOESN'T stay around gandalf's leg, as is clearly visible. It falls along with the balrog almost immediately after staggering Gandalf.
The scene is a bit weird. We see gandalf turn away from the bridge's ledge. Therefore, any idea that Gandalf would have willingly leapt after the balrog is absurd, he would have done so immediately if that was the case.
Instead, he is grabbed and staggered, tries to climb, calls the fellowship a bunch of poopface idiots and then drops down, when that wasn't his intention earlier.
From the movies we're supposed to believe, I guess, that Gandalf changed his mind, or that he felt himself slipping and decided the best course of action now was to fully let go. But neither of these explanations really are clear from the visual text, it is an ad hoc rationalization, not a piece of evidence.
Therefore, people are fully justified in finding it a bit strange that Gandalf didn't just pull himself up or allow others to pull him up. Again, the balrog DIDN'T have a hold on Gandalf anymore, watch the scene again if you don't believe me.
@@RedFloyd469 I think the reason they did the Gandalf lines while holding on to the ledge, is because if Gandalf was speaking while falling, screaming to his companions to run away, that would appear comical in a movie. Just imagine it. And with the voice going out as he falls, fly you fooooooollllssss dragging on as he drops out of sight. It would be comical.
Another thought I had when Gandalf couldn't hold on to the ledge was that he was too exhausted from the spells and combating the Balrog. Normally he could climb back no problem. But he was tired and wounded, including from the whip.
i think it’s cool the movies and books are different. just watched the movies and i’m really excited to read the books. it’s like experiencing it twice
The way I look at the books versus the movies is that both are canonical, but in their own separate universes. Incredibly similar yet different
Theatrics are a very real language medium unto themselves. Jackson expertly adapted the works, maintaining integrity to the highest regard.
I remember being 14, reading LOTR for the first time, and having to leaf to the last pages just to check if Gandalf was still there.
Gandalf and the Balrog are practically distant cousins; They (and Sauron) were all Maiar (lesser gods) who all had a role in singing the world in to being before there were elves, dwarves or humans.
Some Maiar were greater or lesser beings or were so specialized in their interests that they practically became part of the scenery of the world that they were creating.
When reading these books to my kids years ago I told them that Gandalf (and the Balrog) were older than dirt. Literally.
Frodo getting stabbed by the troll and surviving is actually one of the dumber moments in the movie. Doesn't matter if he's wearing that vest or not, it's loose chainmail. He would have been squished with every bone in his torso shattered.
If it was an ordinary chainmail that is what would have happened
@@TheAtherion As they've depicted it in the show - loose fitting mail - the stab would have crushed him whatever the material was made of. He's a tiny midget with a loose set of mail around his torso and there's a ten ton troll stabbing him with a huge spear. Due to the laws of physics, he would have literally been pressed like a grape by both sides of his armour.
@@Johnnythefirst Indeed. The tip wouldn't have pierced the mail, it would have driven the mail into Frodo's innards.
How he had on special armor one of a kind armor weirdo
@@Johnnythefirst Unless this chain mail shirt was a bit magical and the links would lock into each other uppon sudden impact , kinda like d3o
So not sure where I read this but when they all cross the bridge running away from the foe…they have to do this in single file as the dwarves built the bridge. Perpusfully this way so that when they where invaded their enemy’s could only enter over the bridge one at a time /single file …the sharp eye will notice this in the movie as well as PJ makes an effort to show it …..great world building from Tolkien ! ❤❤❤
Jackson perfected what Tolkien created.
😄😆😅😂🤣
"Perfected" implies that his version serves as a better replacement. But it is not. The two are of a different kind.
What Jackson did was that he ADAPTED the literary work in a way to make it usable for a movie. And he did that great. I´d say almost perfectly. But that doesnt mean that he perfected it.
This is absolutely my favourite chapter in the book - it's such a short chapter, but the build up and pacing of it brilliantly creates so much tension and fear. It's also probably one of my favourite parts of the films, but the one thing that really bugs me is that they made Durin's Bane appear to be just a mindless monster... The moment would have been much better if the balrog had some sort of evil expression, even.
This sequence showcases the extent to which Jackson destroyed Gimli's character. Gimli is a grim and serious individual, yet Jackson decided to turn him into an Italian soap opera actor. Jackson has Gimli gloating to Legolas about the alleged hospitality of the dwarves one minute, in the kind of hubristic speech that invariably presages disaster, only to have him howl like he's got an infected molar the next when Gandalf's light reveals the dead bodies of dwarves in the caves. Jackson has Gimli behave the same way in the Chamber of Mazarbul. In the book, Gimli's reaction to discovering the fate of Balin is movingly stoic: he pulls up his hood to hide his face. And when they flee the chamber, Legolas has to drag him away from the sarcophagus. Tolkien's Gimli is a character of dignity, one that we can respect. Jackson's Gimli is a drama queen and at times a buffoon.
Yeah, Jackson did Gimli dirty. I mean, comic relief is one thing. To lighten the tone. But to always have the comedy put on Gimli. Shameful.
He also has those irritating 'nobody tosses the dwarf' moments as well as doing the dirty on him in the Battle of Helm's Deep.
I have to wonder how much the Dragonlance Chronicles may have influenced the decision to turn Gimli into a clown.
Personally I don't hate it, changes have to be made when adapting a book into a movie, but I do prefer the Gimli of the books.
The company’s exit from Lothlorien really shows a different side of Gimli in the books. He along with everyone else is grieving they have to depart, but he really opens his heart to Legolas to share just how painful it is to leave.
I agree, but I don’t lay all of the blame at Jackson’s feet. Some of it is John Rhys-Davies’ fault. He gives an exceptionally hammy performance. I know he has a large personality, but I think it was too much here.
I woulda liked if they had explained the fate of Oin and Ori in Balin's tomb from the book and woulda liked if he handed the book to Gimli, but I kinda prefer the movie version of Gandalf VS the Balrog due to the fact that he, a great powerful and wise wizard, should know it was there, given Saruman knew from the Dwarves' folly and spoke it to him, be it telepathically or in previous years before Saruman's betrayal. Him dreading going in as he knows he might be destined to fight and defeat the Balrog but might lose his life in the process shows Gandalf, for all his angelic power, is still human with feelings of fear. He's scared of going into Moria and yet is willing to if that was Frodo's decision.
Also, I know this is getting a bit ahead of this, but I wish the movie gave us the Slime Balrog. Seeing Gandalf swim to shore to catch his breath but then the beast screams as it's flames are slimed over and he fights and chases it up to the top of the mountain where it reignites it's flames woulda been extra awesome.
In the context of the scene, To Fly means to move with great haste. Gandalf is not telling them to use the eagles, nor did he ever have that intent.
What he's saying is "Run as fast as you can."
Gandalf is telling the Balrog to fly, so they wont both fall
6:20 It's not actually drums they hear at this point in the book, it's hammers being used to tap out signals back and forth.
The older I get, the more I despise the movies and the awful unnecessary changes and removal of content from the book. Listening to any of the audio versions (except the terrible one by Andy Serkis) is a thousand times better than watching Jackson's abominations.
The Phil Dragash audiobooks are better than the movies. Except for his female voices. Wish he would have brought in a female voice actor for those.
@FuriousEgg, I understand. I can’t enjoy the films very much anymore knowing what has been missed.
Honestly no, they're just as good as anyone could have ever made them. Peter Jackson's trilogy is certainly different from the books but film is a different medium than book so I don't think every single little change he made is sacrilege. Also, you call removal of content from the books "unnecessary"? The extended editions are already TWELVE HOURS LONG, besides Jackson didn't remove anything absolutely essential to the story.
Jackson's "abominations" are really decent movies and I for one am grateful that we got them instead of something a lot worse. A lot of time and dedication went into those, and they are not well regarded by most people for nothing. I personally don't love them (they ARE action movies for teenagers) but I can still respect them as works of art.
😂 You crack me up, dude
Andy Serkis' versions are terrible? You're a pioneer of all sorts of opinions!
This is a troll
I first read The Lord of the Rings when I was 11 or 12 years old. I loved it. I also enjoyed the flawed animated version. When the Peter Jackson movies came out I was blown away. Even more so when I watched the extended editions. The Moria scenes gave me chills.
Jackson may have chopped and changed thungs but he still gave us Middle Earth.
Despite i love re-discovering how richer are the books, thanks to you series, we have to give back to Peter Jackson that awesome fact that he somehow managed to adapt succesfully a story that had the reputation to be impossible to adapt in movie(s).
We're lucky :)
Thanks ever so much for narrating the entire damn thing.
It was so powerful how the balrog roared and then Gandalf yelled back.
Such magic. Very power. Wow.
I actually like that the Orcs run from the Balrog in the film. It makes more sense for them to stand at its side yeah, but I kind of like that he’s so terrifyingly powerful that even if he’s on their side his collateral damage output is so much that they’d rather just be completely out of the way.
The movie vs. the book? Apples and oranges time!!!😀😀😀
This scene was epic and tear dropping know the companions are disbelief of Gandalf dying.
I think Jackson did a good job of putting it onto the screen with one exception - the stupid stupid stupid crashing stairs - that always pulls me out of the moment - it is more like someone was thinking about "how are we going to make this into a video game" than they were about making a movie
This ist an exceptionally good video even by your extremely high standards. Thank you for the impressive effort.
I think i would have liked the counter spell scene to play out, could have been done later in the chase while running from the balrog or such, but it adds a little more to this mighty foe..
Don’t think it’s ever occurred to me before, but while watching this analysis, the thought came to me of a ‘What if…?’ scenario where Glorfindel was part of the Fellowship, and when it gets to the holding the bridge part, him channelling John McClain - “How can the same shit happen to the same elf twice?”
😜
I absolutely love the movie design, and its rightly become iconic and influential, but I do think something was lost by giving it such a definitively monstrous face. It feels less like Gandalf is contending with a dark mirror of what he could've or could become, and more like he's fighting a big ancient creature.
Might have been covered in a previous video, but what struck me about the Moria sequence was how they made the decision to go in the first place. In the book, it was GANDALF'S suggestion and ARAGORN who was vehemently opposed to it. Whereas in the movie it was GIMLI'S with Gandalf opposing. This diminishes Gimli immensely and unfairly, and even Aragon slightly, while elevating Gandalf even further. And... Yeah, hated that!