# Unnecessary Adaptations (A TTT Rant) \*\*Spoilers\*\* **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 4, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530 "2003-01-04T01:04:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/121 "2003-01-08T23:22:06Z")
Had you made comments, instead of fallacious appeals to authority and dismissals, then I might have had the chance to ignore them. Instead you made a very clear dismissal of my contributions, targeted specifically at me. You added nothing to the discussion. All you did was dismiss my contribution. And now that you’ve actually made some comments, I return the favor. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/122 "2003-01-08T23:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > \*\*Had you made comments, instead of fallacious appeals to authority and dismissals, then I might have had the chance to ignore them. > \*\* > > 1. I made no fallacious anything. Everything I said was accurate, whether you like it or not. > 2)I made no appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would have been “I disagree and because this expert agrees with me you’re wrong.” I never said that the fact you were in the minority made you wrong. I simply noted the fact that you were in the minority. > 3)Nothing _I_ do prevents you from ignoring my posts. That is entirely YOUR decision, but one you appear incapable of making. > > \*\* > Instead you made a very clear dismissal of my contributions, targeted specifically at me. You added nothing to the discussion. All you did was dismiss my contribution. And now that you’ve actually made some comments, I return the favor. > \*\* No, you’re not making comments. you’re simply restating what you’ve said already and doing a worse job of understanding the situation each time. I disagreed with your opinion. I know it makes you angry, but you’ll just have to work on being more mature in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Epigramcracker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5e9695/32.png) [@Epigramcracker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epigramcracker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/123 "2003-01-09T02:02:03Z")
Isn’t beating a dead horse _such_ fun? 😃 No, but really, I’m probably coming to the end of my stint of discussion contributions. More’s the pity. But here are a few final attempts! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > **To have that replaced by snap decisions and seemingly happenstance encounters which turn into something more is simply not the same. It is a departure from the source material. It is one I have not seen, nor do I see, a compelling reason for. I keep hearing nebulous claims about “a movie isn’t a book” and “some things have to go” but that doesn’t really answer the question does it?** I think probably the most important part of your above quote is the “compelling” part. Unfortunately, I really do believe that the _entire_ reason for the Merry/Pippin-setup changes was Time with capital T. Often when people give the “movies aren’t books” excuse, I think this is what they mean. I’m absolutely sure this particular change was a simple matter of minutes and seconds and how many they thought your average audience member could stand for. NOW, while that (I think) _is_ the reason, it’s obviously anyone’s opinion whether that reason is _acceptable_ (or “compelling”). So really, I think the problem is, the “question” has been answered–but the answer just isn’t satisfactory to all. Which is, of course, too bad, but also inevitable. Also, **Mgtman** , I just had to say–while we’ve obviously been debating/disagreeing on some things, I can tell that you still respect the movie, which makes this really productive and nice. So, yeah, since I’m still a huge fan/defender of the movies, thanks for not just randomly attacking them and spitting flames. Lastly… > [@](#): > > I simply can’t imagine the book Eowyn putting up with advances from Grima the way she did in the movie. She would have been the one to draw blade against him instead of Eomer. \*\* I have to agree with you here (\<–Oh my god! XD)! No but seriously, HOW gross is that “I’m going to be a slimy villain and touch your cheek while I say creepy things” scene?! Jeesus. I too was waiting for her to bash him one–WHY does she stand there for that long? I have to admit, though, it seemed so odd to me that I started thinking of possible reasons–the only one I could come up with was that (book aside, just movie now) possibly Wormtongue actually has a little _speaking magic_ of his own, or something (like a mini-mini-version of Saruman’s whole _Voice_ thing) and thus he’s able to work his power over her for a very short time–that would mean “Your words are poison” could really be literal–like he actually was working some quasi-spell thing. That’s all I could come up with… what do you think? Namarie, -Epi ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/124 "2003-01-09T02:16:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Epigramcracker \* > \*\*I have to agree with you here (\<–Oh my god! XD)! No but seriously, HOW gross is that “I’m going to be a slimy villain and touch your cheek while I say creepy things” scene?! Jeesus. I too was waiting for her to bash him one–WHY does she stand there for that long? I have to admit, though, it seemed so odd to me that I started thinking of possible reasons–the only one I could come up with was that (book aside, just movie now) possibly Wormtongue actually has a little _speaking magic_ of his own, or something (like a mini-mini-version of Saruman’s whole _Voice_ thing) and thus he’s able to work his power over her for a very short time–that would mean “Your words are poison” could really be literal–like he actually was working some quasi-spell thing. That’s all I could come up with… what do you think? > \*\* That’s what I was thinking during the movie. If you looked at Eowyn’s face you could see that she was going into some sort of trance, the clear implication being that Grima had some sort of magic that made his voice hypnotic. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/125 "2003-01-09T18:21:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SolGrundy \* > As a side note, one of the things that I was disappointed with in the first movie was that the Ringwraiths didn’t seem all that scary. In the book, there was this sense of dread throughout the Hobbits’ journey to Bree, the feeling that they could be caught at any moment. But I’m not sure if any visualization would be as powerful as the mental image from the book. What movie were you watching? 🙂 I didn’t think the Nazgul were that frightening when I read the book. The movie evoked a visceral reaction from me and–judging from the reaction of the crowd in the theater–it worked for many others as well. The scenes by the tree, at the inn (with Barliman hiding in terror as the wraiths went by), and the confrontation at weathertop (when the five raise their swords) were some of the most powerful moments I’ve seen in cinema. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/126 "2003-01-09T18:27:33Z")
Mtgman, even when I disagree with you, I like your posts because you can state you position without resorting to insulting Jackson and his crew. Others have responded to your posts far better than I can, but I haven’t seen a response to this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > **The chapter “A Conspiracy Unmasked”, where Frodo discovers that Merry, Pippen, Sam, and Fatty Bolger have known about his danger and are resolved to help him even to the point of placing themselves in great danger and take his burden seriously was one of the most touching in the entire trilogy. To have that replaced by snap decisions and seemingly happenstance encounters which turn into something more is simply not the same. It is a departure from the source material. It is one I have not seen, nor do I see, a compelling reason for. I keep hearing nebulous claims about “a movie isn’t a book” and “some things have to go” but that doesn’t really answer the question does it?** I read the books after I saw Fellowship, and I was shocked at the differences between Frodo’s leaving the Shire in the movie and Frodo’s leaving the Shire in the book. While I loved the book version and could understand why readers were upset at the loss of the “Conspiracy,” the movie version was perfect for the movie. I felt the same when I re-read “The Fellowship of the Ring” prior to seeing TTT. As you know, in the book, it takes Gandalf 17 years from the time he leaves the Shire to research the Ring (and find Gollum and all that), and the time he returns. Then, after he’s returned and told Frodo that the Ring is the One Ring and is very dangerous and that Frodo must leave, Gandalf goes off again and months pass while Frodo prepares for the birthday party and makes plans to move. That, of course, gives Sam, Merry and Pippen plenty of time to make their own plans, but it simply would not have worked on film. I can’t even imagine a way the script could have been written to incorporate that kind of time frame. It might work in a 20-hour miniseries, but not in a 3 hour movie. They had to establish danger and tension quickly, and they did. As someone who was experiencing the story for the very first time (as I’ve said, I knew NOTHING of the story before seeing the movie), I was on the edge of my seat, sick with worry about what would happen next after the point where Gandalf startles Frodo and says “is it secret? is it safe?” (I know fans hate that, but it really worked for me). When those black riders came out of that castle I didn’t know who they were, but I knew they were Bad News and felt Something Bad was about to happen. A leisurely pace in that whole segment and title cards saying “17 years later” and “6 months later” would have been laughable. Even more laughable would have been the convenient coincidence that the Black Riders just _happen_ to show up at Frodo’s door the VERY night that Frodo leaves Hobbiton! That’s some eye-rolling stuff, no matter how well it plays out in the book. Frankly, it’s kind of eye-rolling in the book too, at least to me (sorry!) but I accept it because it works while reading. In the movie, I about had a heart attack when the Black Rider confronted the Hobbits in the forest. I probably wouldn’t have felt so fearful if I’d known that the boys had been hanging around for 6 months. That’s not compelling? C’mon, please try to look at it from the point of view of a non-book reader. There’s no way it would have worked. If you think so, tell me how. Assuming everything else in the movie is unchanged, how could that part (say, from Bilbo’s leaving to the Hobbits entering Bree) could have been re-worked, in the same amount of time within the movie? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/127 "2003-01-09T22:40:31Z")
The non-book reader doesn’t have a horse in this race. They only see one version and to them it’s definitive. Why would they care, or even KNOW, if changes were made for the film version? The non-book reader won’t care as long as whatever is on the screen is a good flick. How could the movie version have gone and still shown Merry and Pippen as willingly, and with knowledge of the dangers, sharing Frodo’s burden out of love for him? Off the top of my head Frodo and Sam could have gone by Merry’s place in Buckland on their way out of the Shire. Maybe they intend to borrow ponies to speed their way to Bree/Rivendell. Meet up with Merry and Pippen, relate the story of their flight through the Shire. Beg to borrow ponies and explain that they’ll leave as fast as they can to keep Merry and Pippen from being in danger. Merry and Pippen saddle FOUR ponies, not two and steadfastly refuse to let Frodo go alone. A few of the lines from “A Conspiracy Unmasked” would still work here. It can be a decision made in less than six months and still it be clear that Merry and Pippen know what they’re getting into and choose the danger out of love for Frodo. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/128 "2003-01-09T23:19:47Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* \*\*The non-book reader doesn’t have a horse in this race. They only see one version and to them it’s definitive. Why would they care, or even KNOW, if changes were made for the film version? The non-book reader won’t care as long as whatever is on the screen is a good flick. \*\* But it isn’t just the non-book-reader that disagrees with the Tolkien Purist position. I’ve read the Hobbit and the LOTR books dozens of times…I read the Hobbit aloud to my son last Christmas. The difference is, although I love the books, I don’t consider them perfect or inviolate. They could have been better. The movies aren’t worse for changing some of the things in the books. ---
**Author:** ![c\_carol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e79b87/32.png) [@c\_carol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/c_carol)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/129 "2003-01-10T00:57:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by emarkp, re Galadriel’s temptation scene:_ > Actually, the overdone special effects were there too Yeah, but in the book she didn’t turn _green_. In the movie, she wasn’t so much terrifyingly beautiful as just scary-looking. ---
**Author:** ![c\_carol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e79b87/32.png) [@c\_carol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/c_carol)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/130 "2003-01-10T01:12:18Z")
> [@](#): > > _by that Tolkien guy:_ > Renewed shall be blade that was broken, > The crownless again shall be king. I agree that one of the most serious mistakes was in making Aragorn so wishy-washy about the kingship. But I think the real problem there isn’t the characterization of Aragorn, but of Elrond. Remember, Elrond has said that Aragorn can’t marry Arwen unless he becomes King. Doesn’t seem like a big deal in the book (in fact, it may only appear in the appendices, I don’t remember), but leaving it out changes _everything_. Without it, Aragorn has lost his only real motivation for pursuing the crown; I think movie-Aragorn is acting exactly the way book-Aragorn would have done without that condition of Elrond’s to drive him. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/131 "2003-01-10T01:33:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > \*\*What movie were you watching? 🙂 I didn’t think the Nazgul were that frightening when I read the book. The movie evoked a visceral reaction from me and–judging from the reaction of the crowd in the theater–it worked for many others as well. The scenes by the tree, at the inn (with Barliman hiding in terror as the wraiths went by), and the confrontation at weathertop (when the five raise their swords) were some of the most powerful moments I’ve seen in cinema. \*\* Fair enough. I just didn’t get as much of a sense of build-up from the movie as I did from the book. The book presented the Black Riders as this ever present menace that hung over everything until Frodo made it to Rivendell. And the book emphasized that the hobbits would be completely defenseless on their own; there was a sense of dread that hung over the journey. I just didn’t get that from the movie, partly because of the time issues – there’s never a real sense of how long it takes to get from one place to another, especially considering how much of the books are devoted just to travelling (and eating breakfast). The movie, at least the theatrical cut, made it seem that it took a day at most to get to Bree. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530/132 "2003-01-10T02:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mtgman_ > Aragorn the traveler to Aragorn the wanderer seems to be a little more than a minor change. It was emphasized over and over in the books that Aragorn was ALWAYS mindful of his heritage and working towards fulfilment of his goal of restoring the line of the kings of men. Do you remember Bilbo’s honorary verse to Aragorn, inspired by Aragorn’s steadfast dedication? > > > [@](#): > > > > All that is gold does not glitter, > > Not all those who wander are lost; > > The old that is strong does not wither, > > Deep roots are not reached by the frost. > > From the ashes a fire shall be woken, > > A light from the shadows shall spring; > > Renewed shall be blade that was broken, > > The crownless again shall be king. > > How is the character who inspired that verse the same characer whom the movie Elrond describes as “He turned from that path long ago”. Apprently you consider this a “minor” change. I’m a big flabbergasted that you can take this stance, but such is your right. > > I think it would have been possible to bring Aragorn the traveler to the screen. I didn’t find his characterization to be poor in the books at all. I agree that a movie with bad characterization is dead but I disagree that the Aragorn Tolkien described is unfilmable or would not touch audiences. How is it _not_ the same character? He’s no less brave, noble, trustworthy, strong, or whathaveyou. All that’s changed is a touch of humility, which to me makes him more heroic, not less. I’m pretty sure Aragorn was closer to the book in the first draft of the screenplay. And I’m willing to bet that Jackson looked at it and said, “This doesn’t work,” and rewrote it unitl it ended up the way you see it here. Basic screenwriting: your central characters need some sort of a character flaw they can over come by the end of the movie. This is one of the bedrock rules of writing a screenplay. Tolkien’s Aragorn doesn’t have a flaw. He’s too perfect, which means boring. Between this and his relationship with Arwen, he’s actually got a character arc now. > [@](#): > > Wrong? Why can my interpretation be wrong but Jackson’s be above reproach? Who died and made you god? Merry and Pippen, at least in the early stages of the film version, were very much moved by events instead of the movers of events that they were in the book. Your other point about their courage being greater because they volunteered to continue on at the Council of Elrond even though they didn’t even know where they were going could also be interpreted a stupidity on their part instead of courage. More of a knee-jerk “don’t go without us” instead of “we’ll go with you no matter where it is or how dangerous”. The latter is courage, the former is present in sheep. No, I didn’t say that interpretation of the book v. Jackson’s was wrong, I said that your interpretation of Jackson’s movie was wrong. You said, > [@](#): > > [Jackson] chang[ed] Merry and Pippen from Frodo’s dedicated friends who declared that they would have to be tied in sacks to keep them from daring the dangers with their friend … into chance companions who just get carried along with the fellowship for the mushrooms and occasional carrot. This is not at all how Jackson portrayed them in the film. They didn’t follow Frodo for the produce, they followed him he was in trouble and needed their help. They could’ve left a dozen times before they even got to Rivendell, but they didn’t. Once in Rivendell, they had the full weight of the forces arrayed against them explained in detail (they were present, although hidden, for the entire council of war), and still stood with their friend. Yeah, you could interpret that as stupidity and not courage, if you were bent on interpreting the movie in the worst possible light. > [@](#): > > In the book he had more than 300 overly old/young people at his disposal. He had not banished Eomer(although he was under arrest) and he had a few thousand riders he could quickly muster. The book Theoden mustered these able-bodied people, sent the others to Dunharrow and rode in person to the aid of the people in the Westfold(who had mostly retreated to Helm’s Deep). He both provided for the safety of the women/children/infirm who were in Edoras AND he rode forth with his men to fight the orcs who were threatening the Westfold. The question is why couldn’t he do the same in the movie? Why didn’t he have a decent number of able-bodied riders to take to Helm’s Deep(in the movie Eomer mentions to Aragorn that “these are all that remain loyal to Rohan” as if THEY, the 3000 with Eomer, was a small force in the grand scheme of things)? If the king had 300 able-bodied riders and 3000 were in rebellion/banished with Eomer that kind of equals a revolution not rebellion/banishment. Why have the king and his household journey to Helm’s Deep and invent the attack by wolf riders on the way instead of simply having the men go to war and the others go to sanctuary? The journey of the household and the subsequent events wouldn’t have saved much, if any, screen time over mustering Edoras and riding to Helm’s Deep and hooking up with the refugees from the Westfold there. > > I just can’t see why this change was made AT ALL unless they just didn’t want to have the Hurons, but that seems like a lot of work to go through to cut that one piece which may be difficult. Yeah, or they didn’t want to add another forty-five minutes to the running length of the film and hopelessly confuse the viewers as to exactly wtf was going on. The movie kept the basic outline of events, but streamlined them down to make the story as compact and focused as possible. It could have been explained better in the movie, but the way I understood events, Theoden (under Wormtongue’s influence) was refusing to mobilize his people. Eomer and a small band of other riders took up arms against the orcs without their king’s permission, which would certainly be treasonous under normal circumstances. So when the orcs show up on the doorstep, Theoden’s got only his personal guard and the assorted servants and servant’s families, so hies himself back to Helm’s Deep in the hopes of holding out long enough for Gandalf to rally the countryside in his name. > [@](#): > > On the whole I agree with you though. I also found the ring to be less malovelent/seductive in Tolkien’s presentation than I felt it should have been. I’ve been fairly happy with the malovelance/seductiveness of the ring in Jackson’s vision. HOWEVER: In the book Faramir knew Isildur’s Bane had destroyed his brother BEFORE he knew what it was or that Frodo had it. THAT is why he rejected it, he understood it. Faramir was a very intelligent and insightful character in the book. He divined the nature of Isildur’s bane(seductive and corrupting) and rejected it(intelligence and nobility) before he even knew what it was. Then he stuck by that decision(more nobility) even when it was revealed to him what Isildur’s bane was and how easily he could take/use it to achieve ends he desired.(well, sortof desired) His main goal was protection and preservation of the noble race of Numenor and while the ring would aid that goal in the short term, which is why Boromir desired it, Faramir was more far-seeing and he saw that the ring would bring destruction to men in the long term. Jesus, how the hell do you convey all of _that_ using only pictures? I agree with what a previous poster said: they didn’t change Faramir’s character at all, they only made the Ring more powerful and obviously malevolent. > [@](#): > > It is clear in the book that Sauron’s forces are already on the move against other forces of good. Legolas and Gimli both mention their desire to have some of their kindred with them at Helm’s Deep but they both understand that their kindred are already beset and having to defend their homes. IIRC the quote was something like “they have no need to march to war. War already marches upon their borders.” My very problem was that this was(as you mentioned) the skirmish. By the time the Rohirrim faced Saruman’s forces there were MULTIPLE skirmishes happening all over middle-earth. This wasn’t a war with one skirmish(Helm’s Deep), one major battle(Minas Tirith) then a deus ex machina(expected to take place before the gates of Mordor as the ring is destroyed). There was a much larger scope to the war in the book. And I say that scope was still there in the movie. I didn’t at all get the impression that this was the only thing going on in the war, and I think it’s unfair to criticize changes in Return of the King before we’ve even seen it. > [@](#): > > All arguements for my position that this is Jackson’s LotR not Tolkien’s. It’s ok to like both and still recognize them as distinct. I agree that the movies are good. I don’t agree that these are the definitive translation of Tolkien’s world to the big screen. There are too many serious deviations. Well, I never argued that this wasn’t Jackson’s Lord of the Rings. It’s self-obviously not _Tolkien’s_ Lord of the Rings; Tolkien didn’t make movies. And, sorry to say, this **is** the definitive LotR movie. You’re never going to get a version that sticks closer to the books: I don’t think such a thing is possible. Yes, there are a lot deviations, some of them serious (the Entmoot was handled particularly poorly, but that’s a rough scene to film. I’m surprised it made the cut.) But deviations are inevitable in this sort of project, and I think Jackson did a good job of choosing when, where, and how to deviate while doing the least damage to the spirit of the original novel. It’s fine to notice their distinctions; I think its unfair to criticize them to the extent some people (not you, necessarily) have for choosing to make a good movie with changes instead of an unwatchable one with absolute fidelity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unnecessary-adaptations-a-ttt-rant-spoilers/146530.md?page=6)