Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » changes in Frodo
12
Author Topic:
NeatNicki
Council Member
Posts: 21
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 18, 2004 08:26
I'm sorry, Let me just say that Frodo kind-of irritated me with how freakin' whiney he was in the film. I love the films right and left and up and down :love:, but he just rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe if he started off whiney, seeing as he had never had an adventure before, and then got tougher as the films progressed, or vice-versa, it would have been less annoying... but, as much as I love Elijah, he just portrayed the character a lot wimpier than I had envisioned in the book. Maybe it's just me?
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 18, 2004 09:25
Some critics don't like Tolkien's works because he doesn't show what the main characters are feeling as they go on this journey.


Some critics haven't read those books properly, imho
Annûniel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 417
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 19, 2004 02:37
Hey I didn't say they were very good critics! I'm just sayin, that Tolkien didn't write a lot about what everyone was feeling during the journey. But those silly critics are just stupid.
EruanwenSaeriel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 19, 2004 05:32
Hey there Figwit - being defensive doesn't help your argument. Could it be possible that we others that you feel cornered by might have a point? Of course this thread is meant to compare the books to the movies - however, not all change is bad and I think the script writers did a good job - they understood the difference between us dedicated Tolkien fans and those who might not be familiar with the books.

You (at least I do) have to admit that it was a good movie moment when the Fell Beast "Harriered" up from behind the wall and the Nazgul confronted Frodo. It may have been wrong according to the books for Frodo to do that, but it was sure a cool thing to watch. The movies are eye candy - the books are not.

And I still believe that many of the characters are a bit flat in the books and I don't think all critics should be tarred with the same brush when they criticize Tolkien's writing. Maybe you are a Tolkien scholar but this "unprofessional" reader felt that in some cases, the movies portrayed the characters better than the books. I for one, liked the movie Frodo better than the book Frodo - he was more engaged - even though I thought he was a bit of a wimp from time to time (always falling down for instance - I think that was a directorial mistake on PJ's part). And Sam's character - well Sean Astin was an "uber" Sam - much more plugged into the situation even though he maintained his everyman ideals. He grew in a believable way into someone who became more than he thought he could be.

What say you?
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 19, 2004 07:39
Hey there Figwit - being defensive doesn't help your argument. Could it be possible that we others that you feel cornered by might have a point? Of course this thread is meant to compare the books to the movies - however, not all change is bad and I think the script writers did a good job - they understood the difference between us dedicated Tolkien fans and those who might not be familiar with the books.


Yes, that's very well possible. BUT (big but) that's not what you were saying. The conversation, in short, was about how we shouldn't compare books and movies. That's something that makes all my hairs stand on end. It's a whole different thing if you say: I like the changes for that and that reason. (Besides, I don't exactly feel the need to get defensive, nor did I feel cornered - I just wanted to point out that there was no need to go all 'movies are not books' on me, because the thread was not about that.)

And I still believe that many of the characters are a bit flat in the books and I don't think all critics should be tarred with the same brush when they criticize Tolkien's writing. Maybe you are a Tolkien scholar but this "unprofessional" reader felt that in some cases, the movies portrayed the characters better than the books. I for one, liked the movie Frodo better than the book Frodo - he was more engaged - even though I thought he was a bit of a wimp from time to time (always falling down for instance - I think that was a directorial mistake on PJ's part). And Sam's character - well Sean Astin was an "uber" Sam - much more plugged into the situation even though he maintained his everyman ideals. He grew in a believable way into someone who became more than he thought he could be.


I couldn't agree less

I'm the first to admit that there are definitely character improvements: Arwen for instance, but especially Boromir. Gollum, too, came out very well in the movies. But none of these characters - at least imo - were really dislocated from their part in the books. (Except of course for the breaking up/dying thing - halfway TTT something goes terribly wrong with Arwen's character).
I like movie Aragorn a whole lot better than the book version, but on the other hand it's not credible compared to everything else that the greatest hero of Middle-earth, a man who was born to re-unite Men upon the eve of the departure of the Elves, would be so very hesitant to pick up his sword and become king. I can't stand book Aragorn, but he is who he is because that's how the story works. The story works very differently with a different Aragorn.

And yes, I do feel that critics (and I don't mean "unprofessional readers" as you refer to yourself and to myself) who get paid to know what they talk about but then go all 'there's no psychology in Tolkien' couldn't be further of the mark. The development in Frodo and Sam, and the evolution of their relationship is a very delicate process, and every step closer to Mordor is a step further into that process.
Boromir, to me, is one of the most beautiful characters in any book I ever read; the psychology behind Théoden, Éowyn, Denethor... is almost flawless. There is a great depth to these books, a debth that Boyens, Walsh and Jackson at times managed to put on screen.
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: April 10, 2006 05:42
I quite agree about Tolkien's psychology. He doesn't use modern psychological jargon - of course not - and he doesn't let us into characters' minds much - apart from hobbits - but his characters are still very vivid on the page, IMO. The fact that you have to deduce what they're like from what they say and do, rather than from being given a blow-by-blow account of their thoughts, just makes them more interesting.

As for Frodo, there are just a couple of things I might add (with apologies if they've been said before and I missed them):

(1) It isn't just the story timeline that is drastically condensed in the movie, it's Frodo's own timeline as well. ITB he is aged 50 when his adventures start, and though the Ring keeps him comparatively young-looking (mid-thirties, whatever that looks like in a hobbit), he's thoroughly grown up and his mind is mature. In this he contrasts strongly with Merry and Pippin, just as his higher social status and level of education sets up a contrast with Sam. (This isn't to denigrate Sam, but there is a difference.) ITM Frodo is tender, raw and young and has no fund of courage and experience to fall back on. ITB Frodo is a strong character whose strength of both mind and body is inexorably and tragically worn down by the strain of the quest, particularly carrying the Ring. He isn't a wimpish adolescent whose main talent is drawling, stretching and fainting in coils.

(2) While it's certainly true that Frodo seems to be denigrated ITM to give more prominence to hero-Sam, the one that really usurps the protagonist's position in many of the Frodo scenes is actually Gollum. This was intentional, as you can gather from listening to the scriptwriters on the DVD. It seems that wicked, bitter, twisted, treacherous characters are more worthy of attention, in their view, than good, brave, virtuous people. Perhaps this is what really makes the film 'modern'!
hobbitnamedeliza
Council Member
Posts: 148
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: April 11, 2006 03:49
Fattybolger, I have to take issue with the idea that the book Frodo is mentally mature...

"'If only that dratted wizzard will leave young Frodo along, perhaps he'll settle down and grow some hobbit-sense,' they said. And to all appearance the wizard did leave Frodo alone, and he did settle down, but the growth of hobbit-sense was not very noticeable. Indeed, he at once began to carry one Bilbo's reputation for oddity."

"...outwardly he retainedthe appearance of a robuse and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens."

Frodo is continually in two different minds about adventure vs. comfort and home. In fact, just as his physical age is effected by the ring, his mental age doesn't advance either.

Frodo does exhibit physical prowess when he's at home, but very seldom after he begins his quest...In fact, he's slightly more "physical" in the movie--where he gives Gollum a fair thrashing...
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: April 12, 2006 02:30
OK, but remember that 'just out of his tweens' doesn't mean 'just out of his teens'. Tweens are 'the irresponsible years between childhood and coming of age at 33'. And JRRTis careful to say that it was only 'outwardly' that Frodo continued to seem like a 'robust and energetic [NB!] hobbit just out of his tweens. Inwardly he was maturing.

I don't think Frodo's mind is ever shown to be childish. 'Oddity' doesn't mean childishness - plenty of adults are very odd indeed, and get odder as they get older. Anyway, the fact that the matter-of-fact hobbits consider Frodo 'odd' doesn't mean that he IS odd. For example, he refuses to go into mourning for Bilbo - what the hobbits take as the first sign of his oddity - because he knows Bilbo isn't dead. It's the other hobbits who are silly here, by assuming that Bilbo is dead when they have no evidence for it, in particular no body. They ought to have remembered that last time Bilbo was 'presumed dead', he turned up again very much alive.

Frodo is no physical weakling either. Not being keen on fighting doesn't mean that you are disabled. He in fact shows extraordinary toughness after being wounded by the Black Rider: Gandalf says 'I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would have been quickly overcome by that splinter, which you bore for seventeen days'. And before that he showed courage and strength by fighting off the Barrow-wight (also noted by Gandalf.) He fights the troll in Moria, and helps Sam overcome Gollum. And when his strength starts to give out in Mordor, it's not just because the Ring is assaulting him mentally but also because he has walked some 2000 miles and gone through innumerable dangers, been dosed with poison by Shelob, is faint from lack of food and water, and has to bear the weight of the Ring, which is literally like a millstone round his neck - that's what it feels like to Sam when he briefly puts it on.

As for mental strength, who else would have been able to carry the Ring so far and not collapse, go mad with terror or succumb to its will? Frodo does succumb at the last moment, but not before.

In fact, Frodo is one tough hero!

[Edited on 12/4/2006 by Fattybolger]
12
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email