😂

Moderation in pursuit of Canon is no virtue!

I love the paraphrasing of Karl Hess.

Oh wow you’re right, good catch! 😂

This could be explained: Perhaps as they entered farmer Maggot's field, Frodo told Sam it was Maggot's land, maybe even with the story about how Frodo used to steal mushrooms and had the dogs sicced on him. But you're right, the scolding tone in Sam's voice - "you've been into Farmer Maggot's crop!" Seems like Sam personally knows farmer Maggot's reputation.

In fact in the book Frodo did tell Sam that story from his childhood

Perhaps it could be assumed that Farmer Maggot is a wealthy and prominent farmer in the region that Sam would know, even if he had never personally been on his lands before?

You just unlucked my memory of noticing that when I was a kid. 😲

How would Gandalf have known there was 4 of them instead of the 2, Sam wise and Froto?

@@tmtb80 Gandalf told Glorfindel that there were at least two hobbits, and Glorfindel brought 4 daggers becasue he figured the Hobbits Frodo and Samwise could probably dual-wield - 1 dagger in each hand

@sierrablue2007 You’re doing a great job exposing the Jackson apologists! 😂

@@sierrablue2007 ahh. And i would agree, of course they could. Badass hobbits!

Why is his name being "Baggins" part of the argument xD I don't understand

@@m0-m0597 Because Gollum says the name Baggins when he is being interrogated in Mordor. He knows it because Bilbo told him when they met in The Hobbit. Gollum also lets out the name of the Shire, which Sauron had not previously heard of. All this is quite faithful to the books.

In defense of the sauron thing. In the books and even in the early versions of the prologue Sauron has flaming hands that he kills with. So he was reaching down to melt Isildiur. I know this information doesn't help your casual first time watcher but once you know you it's helps

I thought about the Sauron thing but I was mainly going for narrative inconsistency, since that’s actually something where an explanation is (in theory) impossible, but Sauron’s reaching for Isildur can easily be explained by hubris. As for Pippin, it has to be said that the Tooks are a family apart from most other hobbits, though it probably made more sense to apply that logic to Merry because the Brandybucks don’t even live in the Shire.

@@TolkienLorePodcast Yes, it would make more sense for Merry to be "Scottish" and for Pippin to be from "Manchester", rather than the other way round - if Hobbiton is supposed to be somewhere like Warwickshire (in the west midlands of England).

so he looked in the house first, then went all around town, gave up and when he came back home he was surprised to find gandalf?

@@doltBmB so Frodo got to the house, searched it, didn't find Bilbo there and went looking somewhere else before Bilbo managed to get there? even though Bilbo went straight home after he put the ring on? my explanation is, that Frodo at first though it was just a prank, and waited for Biblo to reappear again at the party, and only when he didn't for a while Frodo went to look for him

In the original shoot of The Two Towers, Arwen was also supposed to be at Helm's Deep! This blew my mind when I first saw it, but in some shots in the final cut you can still see her running around from far away, *and* during Theoden's charge down the causeway, Legolas has a doppelganger. They digitally replaced Arwen with a second Legolas for those shots. Haldir and the Lorien elves coming to fight at Helm's Deep was a reshoot addition, after PJ and the team decided that Arwen's scenes weren't working out. I think at the very beginning, the plan was even for Arwen to be with Aragorn through the Paths of the Dead and all the way to the Black Gate, but they changed all of that after taking her out of Helm's Deep. Ironically, despite all of the complaints about replacing Glorfindel, this actually makes her at least a bit closer to her book counterpart, even if it makes her big scene in Fellowship more incongruous. The problem was, they couldn't exactly go back and change it at that point!

@@QuasarKaraoke ye, I agree. I can only judge the films as what we got. A friend brought this to light as the films came out, and I can't unsee it. Something is broken here. I still insist they should have gone all in, or none at all. I still find it funny that people see her as bringing the wrath of the river down on the nazgul and not Elrond. I wish the movie made that more obvious. Maybe a subtitle of like 'Daddy, I'm in trouble, help me pls!' as she spoke. He is suppose to be much more impressive than the negative nancy the films make him. Like they did with my boy isildur. dirty. : (

u will watch his videos and like them *whip*

Not explicitly, but the clear implication is that Gandalf comes straight back to Bag End after he reads Isildur’s scroll.

But in the movie there is no Bill Ferny.

Not the first age; they were made by the Dunedain of Arnor in the Third Age specifically against Angmar, but you got the basic idea.

Ok, but look at how many assumptions you have to make there that aren’t rooted in anything we’ve learned in the story thus far. That’s at best extremely poor writing. Compare how it happens in the book and the difference is stark.

Not to my knowledge, and I imagine the only effect would be the ability to wield the powers of both rings (if different).

That still doesn’t tell him Frodo’s relevance. We know there are many rings even in the movie, so how would he know this is THAT ring?

@@TolkienLorePodcast There's a term used by writers, particularly screenwriters, called "shoe leather". It's used to describe mundane procedural events that advance a narrative but are not depicted because they lack entertainment value and/or would negatively affect the dramatic tension or pacing of the narrative. Several of the nitpicks described here fall under this category, and most are really only relevant upon repeat viewings, or if the viewer was already familiar with the source material to begin with. In this specific scene, it can be inferred from context clues revealed later in the film that Aragorn previously received descriptions of the hobbits and any other relevant information from Gandalf that would help him identify them. While this would have been easy enough to show, it would have drastically altered the tone and dramatic tension of the scene. The viewer is supposed to be wary and confused about about who Aragorn is and what his intentions are, because at this point in the narrative we are still following the fearful and vulnerable perspective of the hobbits, specifically Frodo. Even without the shoe leather, Aragorn is presented as a quite intelligent and vigilant person right from the start. It would be pretty farcical of him to conclude that hobbits showing up The Prancing Pony with magic invisibility rings is a common enough occurrence to not warrant further investigation.

@LarimerFilms sure, but as I said at the outset of the video, my criticisms here aren’t entirely serious. That’s why it’s an “extremely nitpicky review”.

@@jachyra9 Yes it's does.

As opposed to…?

I think Robin Williams could have played Tom Bombadil.

​@@edwardbarach2263 He would have been perfect. 😢

Brian Blessed would've been perfect.

For the sweet, sweet advertising dollars 🤑