Come forth and look at stuff

Frodo has lost hope, as well as the ability to access any positive emotion, by Return. He is already losing it in Towers: he keeps going through duty and determination and of course Sam's constant help.

For most of the story, Sam is fueled by hope, which is why it's such a huge moment when he finally lets go of the hope of surviving and returning home, and focuses on making it to the Mountain. To speed their way and lighten the load, he throws his beloved pots and pans into a pit, accepting that he will never cook, or eat, again.

When Eowyn kills the Witch King, she's beyond hope and seeking for a glorious death in battle. It's possible that in addition to her love and loyalty for Théoden, she's strengthened by her hopelessness, the fear of the Nazgúl cannot touch someone who's already past despair.

Faramir is his father's son, he doesn't have any more hope of Gondor's victory or survival than Denethor does, he says as much to Frodo. What hope have we? It is long since we had any hope. ... We are a failing people, a springless autumn. He knows he's fighting a losing war and it's killing him. When he rejects the ring, he doesn't do it in the hope that his people can survive without it, he has good reason to believe they cannot. He acts correctly in the absence of hope.

Of course LOTR has a (mostly) happy ending, all the unlikely hopes come true, the characters who have lost hope gain what they didn't even hope for, and everyone is rewarded for their bravery and goodness, so on some level the message is that hope was justified. But the book never chastises characters who lost hope, it was completely reasonable of them to do so. Despair pushed Théoden and Denethor into inaction, pushed Saruman into collaboration, but the characters who despaired and held up under the weight of despair are Tolkien's real heroes.

(In an early draft of Return, Frodo and Sam receive honorary titles in Noldorin: Endurance beyond Hope and Hope Unquenchable, respectively. Then he cut it, probably because it was stating the themes of the entire book way too obviously, because this is what Tolkien cared about, really: enduring beyond hope. Without hope.)

Amdir is practical hope. It's saying, "ok, we do this, that, and the other thing and we'll probably be ok." It's the strategizing, action-oriented, mindset that most modern folk would think of when they hear "hope". Boromir was very much a man of amdir. Amdir is why he was a good general, why he jumped to plow snow with nothing but his arms on Caradhras with Aragorn so they could all make it back down the mountain. Amdir is good, but it is also fallible.

Estel is... not that. Estel is what Tolkien called "high hope", the enduring hope that the world will turn out right in the end, regardless of what that means for you personally. Estel is saying "I will do what should be done, what must be done, even if it kills me." I guess the closest word would be "faith", but I hesitate to call it that, given the extremely religious connotations that word can have, and, as devout as Tolkien was, he didn't really use estel quite like that. Estel was not a thing that required belief in, or even knowledge of, Ilúvatar or anything like that.

Frodo and Sam are running on pure estel by the end of RotK. Well, everyone left of the broken Fellowship is by that point, tbh. So you could say that their hope for their own personal selves was gone out the window by that point but that's not quite the same thing as being hopeless.

Sam even has a moment after ditching his pots of his own estel and fallen amdir arguing with each other:

He could not sleep and he held a debate with himself. ‘Well, come now, we’ve done better than you hoped,’ he said sturdily. ‘Began well anyway. I reckon we crossed half the distance before we stopped. One more day will do it.’ And then he paused.

‘Don’t be a fool, Sam Gamgee,’ came an answer in his own voice. ‘He won’t go another day like that, if he moves at all. And you can’t go on much longer giving him all the water and most of the food.’

‘I can go on a good way though, and I will.’

‘Where to?’

‘To the Mountain, of course.’

‘But what then, Sam Gamgee, what then? When you get there, what are you going to do? He won’t be able to do anything for himself.’

To his dismay Sam realized that he had not got an answer to this. He had no clear idea at all. Frodo had not spoken much to him of his errand, and Sam only knew vaguely that the Ring had somehow to be put into the fire. ‘The Cracks of Doom,’ he muttered, the old name rising to his mind. ‘Well, if Master knows how to find them, I don’t.’

‘There you are!’ came the answer. ‘It’s all quite useless. He said so himself. You are the fool, going on hoping and toiling. You could have lain down and gone to sleep together days ago, if you hadn’t been so dogged. But you’ll die just the same, or worse. You might just as well lie down now and give it up. You’ll never get to the top anyway.’

Fuji?! MeLoNiE? BANANTHONY?! I would cherish them with my whole and entire heart.

is it a good movie? neither yes nor no. it depends on the person.

if you're in it for a good experience and a beautiful movie, then you will enjoy it a lot.

if you're in it for historical/cultural accuracy and faithfulness to the original book, then you will NOT enjoy it.

i think we should stop expecting any adaptation to be 100 percent accurate at all times. you are free to criticise the movie for a myriad of reasons and it should be criticised. it's a giant movie from a famous director, there are high expectations that he has to reach.

I might translate this article later today. This one was the most complete one, even in Italian news it's not talked about that much.

Found an article on this in English

Also a different, unrelated article about concerns & possible violation of international law in using another of the film’s locations

Nolan's brooding and grounded directing style fundamentally does not work for a Greek myth adaptation. 

I'll start with some high points. I liked the integration and emphasis placed on Zeus's law of hospitality and mutual trust between strangers. It is seen abused by the suitors and seen frequently on the ventures of Odysseus and his crew. I am pleased that they framed the sacking of Troy as a blatant violation of Zeus's law and breaking of Troy's trust with the Greeks at the end of the war. Arguably, the first violation of the law of hospitality occurred with Paris abducting Helen from Menelaus's home. I also think that the shot of Odysseus beheading Athena's statue and showing it beheading Athena herself grappled by Greek men is an extremely poignant shot of showing that Odysseus directly violated the laws of the gods and serves as a reminder as to why he is in this perpetual wandering in the first place; punishment from the gods. 

That is to say, however, that that shot of the statue beheading would have been further amplified by the active presence of more gods than just Athena. Western adaptations LOVE to adapt the Iliad and the Odyssey without the gods because apparently it's too complicated and when looking for ways to shorten the film, the first thing that happens is axing the gods' influence and presence. There is no Greek myth without the Greek gods and it is what makes the stories so fascinating and exciting. I absolutely do not like the argument that Nolan and the cast made on myth and realism being the reason for the lack of gods during their press tour. Cutting Zeus' direct presence and omens, cutting the full extent of Poseidon's wrath, cutting Aeolus the wind god and Hermes who help the crew, and cutting a lot of Athena's more direct involvement with Telemachus all made the story suffer from what makes Greek mythology so compelling and unique. Odysseus also lacking faith and belief in the gods is wholly uninteresting and making him hate the gods is not a good choice. Odysseus takes the gods very seriously in the source material and omens from the gods are very important in terms of how he acts and how he interacts with the world.

Moreover, they cut the "Nobody" scene in the cyclops encounter. Complete bullshit. It is Odysseus's most iconic moment of wit and it also forms part of his desire for kleos - glory. Odysseus going back on his witty technique by revealing his identity to Polyphemus in an attempt to claim victory in his name against the beast is how Poseidon knows who attached his son and is the catalyst for this extended rivalry between Odysseus and Poseidon. Ultimately, it made the cyclops encounter dreadfully boring. Every other story beat of the Odyssey also suffers. Circe's island is dull and boring and she, a literal goddess, is dressed like a peasant. Calypso is a one-note character who for some reason has the lotus that was cut out from the lotus-eaters island arc. Charybdis, the Sirens, and Scylla happened way too fast to be interesting, and the lack of torches in the Scylla scene as a way to differentiate the sacrifices is funny. If Scylla was grabbing six random people, she could have easily grabbed Odysseus. A small gripe: it's Helios's cattle not Apollo's, though that scene was alright. Penelope and Telemachus were not very interesting, and the entire start and middle of the movie was quite boring, with things only getting mildly interesting at the end with Odysseus's whole speech on Zeus's law and killing the suitors. Menelaus and Helen were also done quite poorly, with Menelaus being much more brooding and harsh than he actually is in the story, and Helen implied to have been mutilated by him. Also that 500 ships line was disgusting. In the Odyssey, it was implied that Menelaus and Helen had mostly made amends after Troy and their years-long homecoming.

The difference between this and Epic the Musical, for example, is that Epic included the mythical world a lot. The gods are all there and have significant parts, even though I have problems with the characterisation. The tone is also mythical and fantastical with interesting production and musical choices. Though it has a weak plot sometimes, it is an enjoyable adaptation that I can look past most flaws and I fully understand why it's so popular.

I might translate this article later today. This one was the most complete one, even in Italian news it's not talked about that much.

Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.

Anyone who reads it should recognize that, because it's a cute adventure story about a funny little guy and some dwarves and a dragon. Also, if you've read LOTR as well, you should be able to easily recognize that the style of language used in the Hobbit is simpler than LOTR. And so are the story elements used. Because it's for a younger audience, purposefully.

On top of that, if you look into the history of how and why the Hobbit got written, you will find out that it was originally a bedtime story that Tolkien told to his kids.

I work in a library, and I frequently refer to the Hobbit as "the gateway drug" for the works of Tolkien. Because it's an easy place to start. You dip your toes in, you decide if you like hobbits or not, or if you like this type of fantasy adventure or not, then you can go from there. BECAUSE IT'S FOR KIDS.

I personally read it at around 8 years old, probably. And it was fine. I loved it. And now I give it to a bunch of other kids at my job and guess what? They love it too.

All fans of the Lord of the Rings DVD extras probably remember that great video of a much-older Rayner reading his childhood review. I didn't even have to look up the last line: It does not need illustrations and should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9.