Ha...this is the funniest thing I've read in months.

I tear up at that moment every time.

That and “I know you are, and I’m coming with you!” when Frodo says he’s going alone.

I can’t read them without tears. Glad the book and movie ended with that line.

Sounds like you had a beautiful friendship with your dog. My dog died 2 years ago after I had her for 14 years. She’s still the photo on my phone lock screen.

I had a similar dog!

I'm so sorry for your loss! It sounds like you guys had a beautiful friendship

What a good friend you had. My heart goes out to you in your loss.

My heart goes out to you. ❤ Our maltipoo, who had “Samwise” on his ID tag, and went by “Sam”, passed away last month. 😢 We miss our brave little Sam too!

rather than that I'd take it as "What am I doing here, Frodo is still in danger!"

That’s one of the best things about the books and movies. They’re both so well done that the differences only enhance their respective medium. Per your example, the text of the book shows so much emotion, but the film’s actors were so good that the movie doesn’t really lose much of that emotional impact.

Sean Astin kills the role, truly

The trilogy honestly has a once-in-a-lifetime cast. Everyone is pitch perfect.

We can cry together

I named my dog Samwise

That sounds more like an allergy then 😅

We are simple, dude. We have allergies... XD

That's so kind! Thanks for watching!

As far as Sam rushing in to battle Shelob with rage not bravery--an old Welsh proverb says, "In a fight, anger is as good as courage."

Think of that confidence in the intellectual sense. He is pretty sure of the things he ignorantly believes.

Thanks so much! I try to angle for analysis rather than criticism

I agree. This is a very interesting video. I loved her analysis of the differences and similarities between book Sam and movie Sam.

On two occasions Frodo was willing to give up the ring - first to Gandalf and then to Galadriel. Neither of these two giants felt strong enough to take it - in their wisdom they allowed Frodo to bear it. Unlike Sam Frodo was sacrificed to the cause.

@@micklumsden3956 100%! But he agreed to it as well. He was willing.

@@pendragon2012He was willing, but he was also the safest choice. I also don't think Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond quite knew what Frodo had taken on and the effect the Ring would have on him.

@@JCej True but they knew what effect it would have on elves, men, dwarves and wizards, lol.

Absolutely. I don't think that Sam's any more of a hero than Frodo, he's definitely more relatable though. To quote Frodo in RotK "It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them." Frodo needed to be the sacrificial lamb, to make the ultimate sacrifice to allow Sam the heroism he has, just as Frodo wouldn't have succeeded without his help. It's their relationship that allows them both true heroism

I agree! It is amusing how Sam writes himself. Imagine him telling the story to his children. (Lovingly): Sam-dad, you’re so cringe!

So sorry for your loss.

What about Faramir? Technically having Frodo captive with the ring and just needing to take it, kinda qualifies as "posession" doesn't it?

Bilbo was under protest and had help from gandalf yes but unique among the other two. Sam and Tom hadn't taken ownership of the ring. They were holding it for a moment for the one who did own it, which doesn't compare to the decades that Bilbo and frodo held it for

​@@nostalji75no because it isn't about "possession" strictly

Faramir has no desire for power over others so the ring has no desire for him

That’s a fair point, but Sam wasn’t merely “holding” the Ring. He was actually using it. He put on the Ring for hours while searching for and rescuing Frodo. All this while in the lands of Mordor, where the Ring would be incredibly powerful. Also, Bilbo freely giving up the Ring is incredibly impressive. He had Gandalf’s help, yes, but he wasn’t forced and he gave it up without threat of violence. Bilbo was an incredibly strong individual

The way I see it, film Frodo is thinking logically. Up to this point, Sam has kept a sliver of Frodo's hope alive with talk of a return journey, but deep down Frodo fears his mission is a one way trip and the loss of the food makes it a certainty in his mind. He fears the Ring will inevitably take Sam and sees his path as doomed. By this point Frodo doesn't care who's lying, he's willing to jump on any excuse to spare Sam from sharing his fate. Frodo effectively thinks he is doing the same for Sam as they did for Bill the Pony.

@@dargron7614 I can that angle as well.

@@dargron7614 I like that interpretation of Frodo, but I don't think it actually works. As Jess points out, Sam *can't* just go home; by sending him away, Frodo is essentially condemning him do death. So Frodo must either be a) so corrupted that he doesn't care if Sam lives or dies, or b) so corrupted he's forgotten that wandering around for weeks in the wilderness without any food will get you killed. Either way, that doesn't sound like Frodo in his right mind. Still, I suppose he could be making what *seems* to him like a rational decision while working within an irrational framework.

"beenade" isn't a neologism, is it? Did you mean to write 'been made'?

@@nostalji75 it's called a typo ;)

@@voodoochild1975az ik, but I wasn't sure. It sounds like a real word.^^ Maybe a good name for a lemonade with honey? :P

Bah, that's silly. People should learn new words through story.

@@NerdilyDone It'd be a learning opportunity if nothing else.

Courageous of you to say.

I feel like stouthearted is a word that originates so much from 'within' a character that it's hard to pull off without all the internal dialogue that a book provides.

Yeah. Book dialogue is a lot more wordy (and very poetic at times). On the screen, dialogue tends to be quick, catchy, and to the point. I’ve seen some television shows where the dialogue is closer to books dialogue, and unless done well comes across as wordy and awkward.

^^ Consequently, this dynamic was ripe for the picking after the early modern period began. In other words, comedy and satire were ready and willing to make a Squire like Sancho Panza for the delusion Don Quixote.

I wish I could say that was intentional haha

I'm so glad you enjoyed the video!

I'm glad you like it!

I think the language needs such imagery; it has more explanatory power. The bravery of Samwise is different from the bravery of Boromir.

@@CreationBrosZone-km5be agree wholeheartedly. Bravery takes many forms. Stout-hearted, normally indicates that one will persevere no matter what, which is Sam to a 't'.

You have a source for that? I know of Tolkien saying Faramir was most like him... but identifying the most with Sam? That's new to me.

@@TheMinecraftHype It's from a few of his taped interviews. Let me start by saying that Tolkien based his characters on real life people he knew before and during WW1, and he was exceedingly nervous about admitting who they were, probably because he feared litigation. In 1977, Humphrey Carpenter published J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, in which he quoted Tolkien saying that Sam Gamgee was partly inspired by soldiers he had known in the First World War. In one interview he said that his personal batman was named Sam, calling him a rustic and heroic man. A real-life Sam Gamgee wrote Tolkien to enquire about the name, and they exchanged a series of letters in which Tolkien seemed extremely nervous, especially about calling the name Gamgee as "rustic". he just didn't want to be sued! In fact, in these letters he clearly is pulling etymological fabrications out of his ass to cover his indemnity. There are now quite a few KZfaq interviews you can watch in which Tolkien slowly opens up about the horrors and trauma he experienced in WW1, about how his books were about his own personal experiences, and how he just wanted to get back to his own rustic life, to his own garden. He is no Faramir - not in any sense at all. He is clearly Sam, who in the end is the narrator of the entire saga. Tolkien said on several occasions that authors needed to place themselves in their own large epics as a narrator. He both covertly and overtly admits he identifies most with Sam even right down to smoking the Hobbit's Leaf, which Tolkien was known to do along with many of his personal friends and fellow authors such as CS Lewis. They were part of a club at Oxford called the Inklings, and together created some very magical gardens where they cultivated numerous drugs, if you didn't know. Tolkien had several gardens he loved, saying in one letter: “I am in fact a Hobbit (in all but size). I like gardens, trees, and unmechanized farmlands; I smoke a pipe, and like good plain food (unrefrigerated), but detest French cooking; I like, and even dare to wear in these dull days, ornamental waistcoats” (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, pp. 288-89). A paragraph from a 1955 letter adds to this theme of Tolkien as a Hobbit gardener: “There are of certain things and themes that move me specially. The inter-relations between the ‘noble’’and the ‘simple’ (or common, vulgar) for instance. The ennoblement of the ignoble I find specially moving. I am (obviously) much in love with plants and above all trees, and always have been; and I find human maltreatment of them as hard to bear as some find ill-treatment of animals” (Letters, p. 220). Tolkien called plants “a helpless passive sufferer” (Letters, p. 239). About trees, he says: “Every tree has its enemy, few have an advocate” (Letters, p. 321). His advocacy for gardening was a psychological admission, for Tolkien believed that he would never return from WW1, and if any man did, they would be empty shallow shells of their former selves if they had nothing to fill them back up. “[Elves] wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be ‘artists’ - and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret. In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs” (Letters, 197). We can see a bit of Tolkien in many of his characters, but mostly in Sam, whose humility (Letters, p. 252), mercy (Letters, p. 234) and divine intervention (Letters, p. 253) were all traits he felt he exhibited: a simple gardener tasked with saving the world. It was his goal of returning to his shire that kept him from succumbing to the madness of the war. A man who says "I am obviously much in love with plants, and above all trees, and always have been" cannot be Faramir. There have been so very many wonderful books written about Tolkien's gardens, including the magical one cultivated by the Inklings (Renée Vink, Gleanings from Tolkien's Garden) we should have no doubt which character he identifies with. The narrator of his stories in Samwise!

Which is something Tolkien would do IRL ^^ His best friends from TCBS learnt he was in love and was going to marry Edith on the same day, even if they knew him for a long time which means he never spoke about it. They were very surprised. So I guess to him, Sam mentioning Rose at the end was completely ok

😄 Yeah, I like that change, too. I think it's kinder to modern audiences who might otherwise misunderstand Frodo and Sam's relationship. It would be very easy to go through the book/movies assuming that Sam was in love with Frodo; after all, he clearly loves him deeply, and in fiction most love stories are romantic ones. I can imagine a lot of people getting to the "Mount Doom" chapter and experiencing whiplash (and maybe even disappointment) as they realise it's a *different* kind of love story they're reading. Introducing Rosie early on helps to code Frodo and Sam's relationship as platonic and gives us a better idea what to expect (and not expect) from it.

Welcome to the channel!

How about Boromir? Messing up, but returning to the battle ; that’s a fabulous role model ( yup, I mess up!)

Great role models but also Faramir for me, he is close to being an ideal man.

Thanks so much!

Yes, Frodo does as much as Sam, if not more. I think the difference is that, in the book at least, we gradually get less of Frodo's perspective and inner struggle and more of Sam's. We actually get to see Sam wrestling with feelings of hopelessness on his way to Mount Doom, compared to Frodo who turns into a bit of a dead weight. That makes Sam compelling to people. But you're right: Frodo was very brave, he sacrificed a lot, and he made some very important choices.

"Macbeth, Macbeth, Macbeth," he cried gleefully as he danced across the stage.