If you look very closely at the bottom right corner of the video, you can just make out Sam and Frodo jumping on that large rock to escape the flowing lava - you have to look very close though. ...at about 0:08

right after this, frodo and samwise finally kiss

Screw that man, I saw with my own eyes once, one of those things plunged a stabby thing all the way through Frodo.

That and he forgot how the story started. That put Robin Williams and me on the floor.

>> ^Issykitty:

>> ^rebuilder:
I'm not really sure what was funny about Wood's story... It was a pretty inelegant ending.

It's Frodo in a suit w/ facial hair talking about Jack Nicholson; THAT's what's funny!

>> ^rebuilder:

I'm not really sure what was funny about Wood's story... It was a pretty inelegant ending.


It's Frodo in a suit w/ facial hair talking about Jack Nicholson; THAT's what's funny!

Cool maybe, but very different from the book though, where he's not a silly demon with a big gob but a human ambassador for Sauron.

As it is in the film, it's worth remembering that while the audience knows Frodo is still alive, his friends there at the gate have no idea. So there is still some emotional weight.

>> ^kymbos:

...We all knew he was going to get to the mountain - why write about it forever? And then I thought, well, not only do we know he's going to get to the mountain, we also know he's going to struggle with gollum and then overcome and throw the thing in the mountain. I was probably too young when I first read it (like 11 or so), but I just skipped to the end, only to find that (from distant memory) there are several chapters after he throws the ring in to tie things up. Several chapters! Ugh...


But the book isn't about Frodo throwing the ring into the mountain. It's about the change of religions and a new mythology overtaking the old. Tolkien was a christian, but I think he was sad to see how previous ages of the world lost their power and disappeared for all time.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ponceleon:
OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...

If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.
Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

I'll go even farther...Tolkien was a top-notch world-builder, but he was a crappy storyteller. His stories were dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate). Now, the world was so amazing that it took me nearly two decades of annual re-readings to come to this conclusion. But in the end, I see no other way to describe his work.

Jackson and Co. did a remarkable job of making it better while keeping the world mostly intact.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

>> ^ponceleon:

OMG Yes... I definitely hear where Dystopian is coming from, but frankly I loved the way that Jackson and crew improved upon the original books for the LOTR. Feel free to flame me, but I actually enjoyed the movies MORE than the books on a lot of levels. There are exchanges in the book that just aren't as natural or tight as they are in the movie and I know this is likely heresy, but I feel like there are some which were even improved. The perfect example is the exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf towards the beginning of the FOTR, particularly after the party when they are discussing Bilbo's departure and the leaving of the ring behind...


If you're going to be flamed, then let me get my asbestos jacket, 'cos I agree with you. LOTR is an undisputed classic, but it wasn't without it's problems. Tolkiens pacing was terrible and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story. The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
does anyone else think peter jackson made a soggy mess out of LOTR?

Well, to be fair the source material is a bit soggy to start with. Don't get me wrong, I love the books, but they do have a lot of padding (Tom Bombadil, the battle of the Shire) that the movies wisely cut. Also the pacing in the movies is better. PJ was clever in moving the encounter with Shelob to the third movie as Sam and Frodo really don't have a lot do in book six.
As for the film version, it had moments of absolute brilliance. Theodren's speech before the battle of pellanor fields still gives me goosebumps. I watched Return of the King at an outdoor cinema and half the audience stood up and cheered at that scene.


yeah you're right. lots of singing too..
hard for any movie to live up to such colossal and subjective expectations. but fuck me sideways if staring into frodo's eyes for the gazillionth time wasn't somewhat suckingly annoying. ahh...i'm such a nitpicky dick

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone else think peter jackson made a soggy mess out of LOTR?


Well, to be fair the source material is a bit soggy to start with. Don't get me wrong, I love the books, but they do have a lot of padding (Tom Bombadil, the battle of the Shire) that the movies wisely cut. Also the pacing in the movies is better. PJ was clever in moving the encounter with Shelob to the third movie as Sam and Frodo really don't have a lot do in book six.

As for the film version, it had moments of absolute brilliance. Theodren's speech before the battle of pellanor fields still gives me goosebumps. I watched Return of the King at an outdoor cinema and half the audience stood up and cheered at that scene.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Flight-of-the-Conchords-Frodo

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by vaporlock.

I kinda figured as much. I was surprised when it didn't come up. Thanks!
>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Flight-of-the-Conchords-Frodo
Although your version has a couple of extra seconds of the episode.