Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » changes in Frodo
12
Author Topic:
Eowyn_Touched-By-Frost
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 103
Send Message
Avatar
Post changes in Frodo
on: May 31, 2003 09:51
In almost every discussion about TTT I have noticed someone has brought up that changes in other charahters may have resulted from the changes in Frodo. I wanted to make a general thread for
discussing that. Here is a basic overview (IMO) of the big changes from the book that effected the movie:

1. Frodo is less resistant. He gives in to evil, fear, and injury much earlier Here I find this caused another change. The Fords of Bruinen, book: Frodo did not give into the wound very much. Glorfindel brought Frodo a horse, which he rode to the himself and there stood up to the Ringwraiths. The Fords of Bruinen, movie: Frodo succumbs to the wound immeadiatly; Arwen comes and takes him across the Ford and faces the Wraiths. Here, the changes in Arwen are caused by the changes in Frodo. He succumbed to the wound much differently, and so was not in any state to ride. Someone had to take him, and so PJ chose Arwen, so he could also enhance the A/A love story more.

2. He is less resilient. When he is hurt, he does not recover comepletely. I can find no particullar occurances I would be able to list in a small space, but instance Frodo seems to carry the wound of the Nazgul {openly} much longer. In the book he kept it to himself much more, and it didn't affect him until the end.

3. The Ring is a charachter. For more visual appeal the Ring is toned up more and is quite close to being a charachter. It has a voice and a will of It's own. The Ring being stronger, and Frodo weaker, results in him giving in much sooner. A good spot this happens: Weathertop, book: Frodo struggles for quite a while, but also appears to have a Gollum-like split personality. His sensible side says to resist, but the other side takes over after a while and he puts the Ring on. Weathertop, movie: Frodo is immediately overcome with fear, and at the Wraith's bidding puts on the Ring with no struggle. This comes mostly from everything being toned up (or down). The Ring and the Wraiths are stronger, and Frodo is weaker; resulting in his will wavering much sooner. This is what caused the changes in Faramir. Frodo was giving in to the Ring allready, and so was secretive and lied to keep the Ring from surfacing. It was Gollum that spilled the beans. Because of this, Faramir doesn't trust them until the end of TTT. And for good cause, IMHO.

4. Frodo has no courage Changes in Sam that I have noticed, like him being braver and apparently smarter. Again, no particular occurances; but I've noticed this: In the book Sam gained courage along the way, but Frodo, like Bilbo, had it all along. In the movie, Sam has courage all along, and if Frodo has it, then the Ring must be on it. I've seen none. Look at the scene in Osgiliath. Frodo is ready to give in, and even give up the Ring. In the book he didn't give up, except once in Cirith Ungol.

I hope this will give a good idea of why some changes in other charachters happened; not to mention spark an interesting discussion!

[Edited on 31/5/2003 by Eowyn_Touched-By-Frost]
Nevthónîel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 228
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 01, 2003 04:25
Now maybe this is a bit off-topic, but I read in a journal today, that Elijah Wood, didn't feel good when he was playing Frodo, at least not in the end, when he the ring took more and more power over Frodo - Lij felt really bad. It was because you're getting in to the character you're playing, and you are the character 24h per day. So Lij felt like Frodo..well, you understand.
Celebroch
Council Member
Posts: 165
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 01, 2003 04:37
I don't agree with the statement about the Ring. In the movie, Frodo does resist it. In the book, although it doesn't come out right away, the Ring is a character, it influnces those around it. To show this in the movie, PJ gave the Ring a voice. It helped those who didn't understand the story follow it easier.
Roheryn
Council Member
Posts: 208
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 01, 2003 05:32
As an actor Elijah would have definitely become deeply involved in Frodo and in his change from a happy-go-lucky chararcter to what I'm sure will be a desparate broken one by the end of ROTK. What must have been truly difficult is shooting 3 films at once and having to jump into the third film where the character has changed so much perhaps only hours after shooting earlier scenes. I must have been very difficult to keep in focus what stage Frodo was at, especially for someone as young as Elijah.

Elijah should be very proud of the job he did. By the end of ROTK I think, as in the books, Frodo will be the character we will remember longest and love the best, just for what he has gone through if for no other reason. No one gives up more of himself to save Middle Earth and remains alive to continue to suffer so much.

I love Frodo to bits, and I love the way Elijah was able to bring him to life.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 03, 2003 02:19
'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'
LOTR 1 XII



I don't think there's much doubt about it: the changes in Frodo are pretty drastic, and dramatic for those who cling to the book (like I do). Even if he shows some courage, it's nothing like the Frodo Baggins we remember from the books (whether we liked him or not). As I see it, there's three reasons.

One you already mentioned, Eowyn-Touched-By-Frost:

3. The Ring is a character. For more visual appeal the Ring is toned up more and is quite close to being a character. It has a voice and a will of its own. The Ring being stronger, and Frodo weaker, results in him giving in much sooner.


I agree (and so I disagree with Celebroch): the Ring gains a lot of character and strength in the movie. PJ explained it thus: the real villain (Sauron) is hardly in the story, and too distant and abstract (a giant flaming eyeball) to have a real impact and create tension. So he enhanced the parts of the closeby villains: the Wraiths (more overwhelming as a presence than in the books, where they're more sneaky background creeps), the Orcs and Goblins, the Uruks (visualised in Lurtz) and the Ring.

He enhanced the Ring's part in the movies in a few ways:
- he gave it a distinct appearance. If you look at the EE, there's a documentary on the third disc that talks about how many Rings were made and how it had to look. A lot of time and effort went into the Ring's 'look'.
- he enhanced the effect it had on others: from the very first scenes (especially on the EE) the effect the Ring had on Isildur, Gollum ànd Bilbo becomes very clear. This is information that we only receive later on in the book, but in the movie it's one of the first things we learn: the dangerous effect of the Ring. Galadriel's voiceover also tells us that the Ring has 'a will of its own', that it 'chose to abandon Gollum' and 'betrayed Isildur to his death'. The Ring takes an active role.
This is not stated clearly in the books: we believe the Ring 'calls out' to the others, 'speaks' to them; but I never took it literally, I always assumed it was the promise these people themselves connected to its power (for instance, Boromir assumes he could use the Ring to defend the city, but I don't think the Ring actually went: 'Hey Boromir, if you take me, I'll defend your city.' It's something Boromir desperately wanted, so he *thought* the Ring might give it to him.)
Also note how Gandalf reacts, how Galadriel transforms, how Boromir goes weird on Frodo (he's near to foaming), how Faramir goes slightly cross-eyed...
- he changed Frodo's reaction to the Ring. Frodo gets in the Ring's hold from a very early moment in the story on, and the corruption manifests itself a lot faster and a lot clearer: he puts it on more easily, he suffers visibly, in TTT he's clearly already lost it by the Osgiliath scene (even hands over the Ring to the wraith). I've discussed some of this in another thread already, so you might want to check that one out: here)


But there's another reason why Frodo seems less courageous, and that's the altered timeline. In the books, it takes Frodo a lot longer to get to Rivendell, and a lot of things happen on that journey, events that define Frodo in a much different way than happened in the movie. {To make this clear: in the EE the first book takes up about 35 to 40 percent of the total film, including the Prologue (not in the book); whilst in the book out of 535 pages (not counting Boromir's death), 283 belong to the first chapter (not including the Prologue) which makes 53 percent.}

For instance, Frodo leaves alone. In the movie, he gets orders from Gandalf to meet him in the Prancing Pony, but in the book Frodo makes the decision to depart for Rivendell all on his own, without Gandalf's guidance. He doesn't even want the others to go with him.
This in itself is a very courageous act, and added to that he also has the responsibility over his friends which is not to be taken lightly. Merry, Pippin and Sam do a very brave and selfless thing when they decide to accompany Frodo; but the weight of their decision also lies on Frodo's shoulders: if anything should happen to them, he's responsible, it'll be his fault. We see this a lot throughout that first book, where Frodo ponders on Merry, Pippin and Sam and how he got them in that kind of trouble. He clearly feels guilty, though it wasn't even his choice.
Frodo is also characterised as somewhat of a scholar. He knows a great deal of things, and he speaks a bit of Elvish as well! The others Hobbits look up to their knowledgeable Mister Frodo, though each of them is knowledgeable in their own way. But Frodo is different, he's had a very different education, he's also more of a gentleman.
He's also wise on a more basic level, for instance when he chooses to trust Strider, because it seems they have no other alternative.

None of these elements are in the movie: Frodo leaves with strict directions from Gandalf and panics when they don't find him in Bree; he never protests when the other Hobbits want to come along, he doesn't talk to the Elves, doesn't tell tales about them or speak Elvish himself... he doesn't even choose to trust Strider. (In the extended edition a bit, but not really as outspoken as in the book imho).


A final reason I see for the changes in Frodo, is Sam. The directors clearly wanted to make Sam's part in the movie bigger, probably because the theme of a servant / master relationship is too difficult for a modern day audience to understand, as well as the idea of pushing through till the end even when there's no hope of making it at all.
From a very early point on, Sam gains a great deal of weight (in a non-literal way of course ) when he barges into Strider's room to rescue Frodo.
The real change of course, is in TTT, when Frodo starts to become a bundle of nerves and Sam has to become his conscious and mouth: he is the one who talks to Faramir, he is the one who saves Frodo from the Nazgul, and he puts up that great motivational speech at the end (needless to say that is not exactly my favourite scene). The change in Sam is so drastic that a lot of people feel Sam is wiser than Frodo, stronger than Frodo, more of a hero... and that he was right about Gollum and Frodo blinded by despair. This change also weighs on the audience's perception of Gollum, but I won't get into that here. It would make an interesting thread though .

*spoiler alert*
It's my belief that PJ & co did this because of the events in ROTK. Those of us who read the books, know that it's not exactly happy happy joy joy; on the contrary: it's one grim continuation of pain and misery, culminating in the end where all hope seems lost.
I think the director and the scriptwriters didn't think a modern day movie-going audience would be able to accept this kind of pessimist, heavy-hearted conclusion for a mere entertainment film; and I think they're right. So it's my guess that, when their original hero (Frodo) threatens to fail, they introduce a new hero (the *real* hero of the story): Sam. This would also fit the 20th century idea of heroism as Everyman: the small person who takes control and succeeds against the odds. Sam is more of an Everyman than Frodo, even in the film.

I don't know any of this for certain, but I have the feeling this is where the movies are heading. And I can't say I'm pleased with it.
*stand down spoiler alert*


All this is not to say that Elijah Wood didn't do a good job: he played the part he got handed perfectly. There are moments in the film where I really believed that was Frodo, moments where he acted to such perfection that I can imagine he must have even impressed a seasoned actor as Ian McKellen. But the character he was handed, was not the one that I found in the book. A mutation occurred, and one I don't favour. A lot has been said about the changes in Arwen and Faramir, but this drastic change in one of the main characters is not to be underestimated, because it effects the entire web of characters, themes and events that surround him.

I would also like to add, that the other main character of the books, Aragorn, has also undergone some major changes. Maybe worth opening a new thread about?
Andtalathiel
Council Member
Posts: 360
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 03, 2003 08:14
Well said Figwit!

I have to agree that it was a very different Frodo we saw in the movie than the one that was in the books. Book Frodo seemed older, wiser, stronger. More of a leader. I mean, he was supposed to be fifty. Elijah Wood is in his twenties. But still, thats not what really bothers me.

Frodo in the books always was wiser than Sam. Sam is described several times as being rather slow, and thinking things through slowly. And about the whole thing with Gollum, well, it was Sam really who made the mistake there as the book says, mistaking Frodo's kindness for blindness. Sam was extremely loyal and definately brave, but he was still the servant and Frodo was still the Master. Sam made mistakes, such as telling Faramir how Boromir wanted the ring, in a moment of anger, whereas Frodo had been wise enough to stay quiet.

Just my humble opinion
Eowyn_Touched-By-Frost
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 103
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 03, 2003 02:39
*SOME SPOILERS*
*spoiler alert*
It's my belief that PJ & co did this because of the events in ROTK. Those of us who read the books, know that it's not exactly happy happy joy joy; on the contrary: it's one grim continuation of pain and misery, culminating in the end where all hope seems lost.
I think the director and the scriptwriters didn't think a modern day movie-going audience would be able to accept this kind of pessimist, heavy-hearted conclusion for a mere entertainment film; and I think they're right. So it's my guess that, when their original hero (Frodo) threatens to fail, they introduce a new hero (the *real* hero of the story): Sam. This would also fit the 20th century idea of heroism as Everyman: the small person who takes control and succeeds against the odds. Sam is more of an Everyman than Frodo, even in the film.

I don't know any of this for certain, but I have the feeling this is where the movies are heading. And I can't say I'm pleased with it.
*stand down spoiler alert*


Yes, I was thinking about that after reading the books again. That will be a shame, I am sure at least to book fans, but is appears that "that is our path..." (he he, Aragorn qoute)
PJ is interpreting LOTR for moviegoers of modern times; the people who don't enjoy literature. I wrote a poem about that once, but I can't post it in this thread! It's not even fanfic. I appreciate the fact the movies opened Tolkein's world to a whole new generation, but I do dislike the changes in the charachters, especially Frodo. He was my faveourite charachter in the books, but in the movies... I dunno, I haven't decided wether I hate him or love him.

I am going to open a thread in books that deals with some of the 'Letters of Tolkein'. It is mainly about a letter that can hae different interpretations as to wether Frodo is a failure, and also a few other possible RotK (book) endings. I'd appreciate it if you'd check it out when it's up, Figwit! (I'll link it here for all interested folk)
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 03, 2003 08:36
And about the whole thing with Gollum, well, it was Sam really who made the mistake there as the book says, mistaking Frodo's kindness for blindness. Sam was extremely loyal and definately brave, but he was still the servant and Frodo was still the Master.
~ Andtalathiel


I quite agree, and I was really annoyed by the way this was changed. The audience's perception of Gollum altered drastically, because now it looks as if Gollum has always been evil, as if the whole Sméagol thing was just a hoax, a coverup for his evil desire to obtain the Ring.

Tolkien knew that no person is ever completely evil, or completely good. That even the ones we consider brave or loyal fuck up at times, and that people who look like baddies might as well be goodies on the wrong track. It's one of the main themes of his books, and it reflected in both Gollum/Sméagol and Sam. And PJ took that very important nuance out, as Eowyn_Touched-By-Frost said, to please an audience that doesn't like litterature, and I'd like to add: that doesn't like to think too much.

It's a shame, really.

Oh, and Eowyn, will certainly do!
Frodos_elf
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 29
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 07, 2003 09:31
I agree with whoever said that the book Frodo was wiser, stronger, etc. I've always thought that Jackson made him MUCH weaker than he's supposed to be; yet you have to admit, it really does put forth his innocence, which is basically the only thing that saves him.
~SPOILERS~
the movie Frodo seems more, how should I say, hasty, rash, and such. I'm just hoping that PJ doesn't send him to Valinor with half the audience thinking he's still the little hobbit that always needs saving and protection from Sam.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And about the whole thing with Gollum, well, it was Sam really who made the mistake there as the book says, mistaking Frodo's kindness for blindness. Sam was extremely loyal and definately brave, but he was still the servant and Frodo was still the Master.
~ Andtalathiel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also agree, for Sam once said something like "his heart's too soft; that's his problem", and often took Frodo's mercy and pity towards Gollum more as stupidity and/or ignorance, when it really all worked out in the end.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 17, 2003 09:39
got this back up because there was some discussion about the changes in Frodo's character in M_Brandybuck's thread about Arwen, and that discussion might best be continued here, for those who haven't contributed to it yet
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 18, 2003 02:24
First off, let me say that Frodo was indeed changed, as well as other characters in the books, but have you really ever seen a movie based on a book that did not have character changes in order to translate things from paper to the big screen? I think there are some who are making a big deal about changes that really work for the movies. When you make a movie based on a book, you have to put as much of the story in as is needed, and cut out what is not, or you will have a movie hours and hours too long. It's not as if PJ changed the books and published them, he has made 3 movies which bring Middle-earth to life, what more could we ask of him?



That said, I wanted to add some comments to what has been said already

EowynTBF said:
3. The Ring is a character. For more visual appeal the Ring is toned up more and is quite close to being a character. It has a voice and a will of its own. The Ring being stronger, and Frodo weaker, results in him giving in much sooner.


And Figwit said:
He enhanced the Ring's part in the movies in a few ways:
- he gave it a distinct appearance.
- he enhanced the effect it had on others
- he changed Frodo's reaction to the Ring



I emphatically disagree! That is utter rubbish ( to steal an expression used by Figwit ) I cannot bring myself to type out all of the quotes to support my feelings about the Ring having a character of its' own here, but if you go back and re-read the chapter The Shadow Of The Past, you will see what I mean. The Ring is able to change it's size, shape, weight, etc. Maybe you say that this is only the perception of the one who holds it, but Gandalf says that it could mysteriously slip off of a finger onto which it was only moments before fitting perfectly well. Gandalf also says that the Ring has an IMMEDIATE effect on whomever is in possession of it. So I don't think that PJ changed the Ring or it's effect on those who possessed it. The Ring really was a character all by itself. It wanted to get back to it's master. It wanted to be found. It tormented Frodo and he was weakened by it.


Also
Figwit says:
But there's another reason why Frodo seems less courageous, and that's the altered timeline



This could be the single most important thing to remember when comparing the book and the movie. PJ did have to alter the timeline. Everything had to happen sooner. Gandalf had to come back to the Shire sooner, Frodo had to get to places sooner, he had to succumb to the Ring sooner etc. Why? Because we are talking about a movie here that when complete will be over 9 hours long. Did it take any of us 9 hours to read the whole book? I seriously doubt it. There is so much happening on the surface of these stories, and even more subtle nuances along the way. How could PJ have possibly gotten it all in without changing a few things and cutting a few people and events out? There is no way he could have and still kept people who have not read the books interested, and isn't that his job? To make a great movie that will be enjoyed by a mainstream audience? Phooey to all of the snotty book people who say "How dare he change these books to appeal to the mainstream?". It's his job people...


So, Frodo was changed, but he had to be in order to make the movies a reasonable length. We could have spent hours watching the subtle changes in Frodo and Sam, instead they sped it all up a bit. I think that the timeline has a lot to do with people thinking that their favorite character was "changed". But if you really take into account the amount of time that passed in the book, between this scene and that scene in the movie, maybe it would make more sense to you. I will probably be alone here as far as anyone sharing my views, but so be it. I just don't think it is such a big deal. If I want the characters to be just as I remember them, I read the book... again


Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 18, 2003 07:17
that was an exellent posts, Nienna, let me just make one comment there

The Ring really was a character all by itself. It wanted to get back to it's master. It wanted to be found. It tormented Frodo and he was weakened by it.


BUT the Ring didn't 'speak', it didn't have a 'voice' (it didn't go 'Araaagoooorrrrnnnn Elesssssaaaaaerrrrr') (now, that's because it's a book, sure, but still... it's a CHANGE )

Anyway, because I'm not a Ring expert but a Boromir expert, allow me to make a small comment on the changes in the way the Ring 'gets to' Boromir: in the books, the Ring gets to him because he sees it as a worthy alternative. Boromir has the choice to return home empty-handed (and without Aragorn, it was clear by the time they went to Lórien that he would go with the Hobbits) ór with the weapon of the enemy. It's my opinion that he made a choice here, perhaps under the influence of stress, fear of his father and maybe the Ring itself (that, like any instrument of power, posesses a certain call and attraction).

In the movie however, Boromir doesn't show that struggle, that desire to do good by his people (and subsequently by his father). All he does is change from goody two shoes Boromir - a slightly dumb but cuddly Hobbit fancier - to a moody DANGER (written in capitals because by the time he attacks Frodo it's become so obvious that a giant pink oliphaunt couldn't have drawn the attention away from it).

The reason, in the movie, is the Ring; and that's why Boromir is so easily forgiven by Aragorn: because he himself *heard* the Ring *call out his name*!

This is you might say a minor change, but it has major implications for my favourite character :love:. I don't whine about it as much as I could, because I *know* that these changes were inevitable to go from book to film. And I'm certainly *not* implying that PJ didn't make two great movies (and I have faith that the third installment will be no less wonderful) BUT these changes affect the characters ànd the plotlines, and thus the themes.
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 18, 2003 08:14
No problem Figwit


What you say about Boromir is true, but I think it has everything to do with the timeline. I never felt anything but pity for Boromir in the books. He was never "bad", he was always trying to do the right thing, but if I'd had to watch all of the character development to get the real Boromir on screen, I'd have been sleeping through my favorite characters' development . LOL !! It just would have taken too long. I agree that some of Tolkien's themes have been changed in order to make the movies work, but it was, as you say, inevitable, and it works for the movies. I just think that if some people (no one in particular) really took the time to think about the timeline, they may not feel like "OMG they changed so and so" or "They took so and so out of the movie, how dare they?". As you and others are getting tired of Arwen bashing, I am tired of movie bashing. I say, if you don't like the movies, why see them? If you want LOTR as it was intended to be, read the books Try to understand why it was changed and that it had to be sped up considerably....and that no matter who made the movie or how "true to Tolkien" it was, it could never please everyone, and meet all of our expectations 'Nuff said.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 18, 2003 09:35
if I'd had to watch all of the character development to get the real Boromir on screen, I'd have been sleeping through my favorite characters' development .


I don't know about that :love:... It's a fact that people like Boromir better now, and even bookies tend to look at him with different eyes, so I can only cheer and shout at the changes; but on a deeper layer of meaning things that belong to the core of Tolkien's work (like the theme of going on without hope, in stead of the movies 'there's always hope') got altered as well, and I can only be sad about that.

As you and others are getting tired of Arwen bashing, I am tired of movie bashing.(...) Try to understand why it was changed and that it had to be sped up considerably....and that no matter who made the movie or how "true to Tolkien" it was, it could never please everyone, and meet all of our expectations


True enough, but when you've been readind the books for 10 years, you get a fair idea of what the main themes are and when those (like I said above) get altered because 'they had to speed things up' I don't think there's any harm in saying so.

I can honestly say that I adore the movies (they're in my top 5 of all time - and that's saying a lot) but I think there's no harm in pointing out *both* the merrits and the problems with changes that come from the adaptation.

But that's just my opinion of course.

Would just like to add that I have never ever ever bashed the movies! Wouldn't even dream of it!
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: June 19, 2003 01:52
"True enough, but when you've been readind the books for 10 years, you get a fair idea of what the main themes are and when those (like I said above) get altered because 'they had to speed things up' I don't think there's any harm in saying so."




Yes, that is a fair statement. I also hope that I have not given the wrong impression with my defense of the movies... I am a book reader as well, and feel most passionate about the written story. But, I think that to expect the movies to contain all of the exact same themes as such a complex piece of literary work is asking a bit too much. Each person who reads the book sees different things, and holds some themes more closely to their heart than the next person. How could anyone have made all of the book-readers happy? I think it would have been near impossible.


Anyway............Back to the discussion about.... hmmm... Frodo wasn't it???:dizzy:.......





Sorry, one more thing, I really think that we need to wait until all three of the Extended Editions are out before we make any judgements about the films. What you mentioned about never seeing how Boromir was trying to please Denethor may be in ROTK, from what I hear, as a dream sequence. So anyway, we really should judge the 3 films as a whole, just as the book should be seen as only 1 book We may come to see things differently when we have seen all 3 films in their entirety. I remember missing things from FOTR that were then added back into the EE, and feeling much better. OK, that's it.

[Edited on 6/19/2003 by Nienna-of-the-Valar]
Periantari
Council Member
Posts: 18
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 11, 2003 05:40
I love this topic!!! =)

I read the book and saw the movie and i must say that I think book Frodo is definitely more courageous and wiser... it's obvious that the time difference plays a role in his character development in terms of how much he comprehends of the situation... but the whole fact that PJ made Frodo succumb to the Ring so much sooner and the fact that he was so weak when he got stabbed by the Morgul blade is understandable for pacing reasons, but i still really disturbed the changes...

i agree with what Figwit and what Eowyn Touched by Frost said and think that most reasons for the changes have already been stated...but it's a shame they did not have him resist at the Bruinen Ford and say the line that is in my siggy....

i'm so ready to see him in action (and despair) in ROTK...

but great thread and great replies! =)

[Edited on 7//12/0303 by Periantari]
Roheryn
Council Member
Posts: 208
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 12, 2003 05:44
I love this thread too and I agree with Nienna of the Valar that we should not be too quick to judge until we have seen all three of the extended versions of the film because not until then will be able to really compare one complete work with another.

I've been reading the LOTR again and have just about finished TTT. This thread, among many others here, has given me pause for thought along the way and I'm getting much more out of this read, which is probably my sixth or so. There really is so much to the book that with every read I notice and remember more of the details.

As I have said before on this thread, I still think that Frodo and his sacrifice will be what we remember in the long run. He changes drastically in the book from Hobbiton to Mount Doom, it just takes much much longer. PJ has had to do some time crunching for film but the result will be the same.
Scothia
CoE Elder Sister
Posts: 800
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 16, 2003 02:40
Amazing thread. One of the best discussions in any of the forums since I first signed up almost a year ago.

I have much to say on this topic but think it best I ponder for a time before posting. I will go for my daily long walk and resume when I return. This will allow me to muse and better prepare my thoughts.

In the meantime, thanks to Figwit, Roheryn, Nienna, and all who have kept this thread going and contributed so much.

I will say this: I find no coward in either Book Frodo or Movie Frodo. Elaboration to follow.
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 16, 2003 09:39
OK, Scothia, I, for one, am anxiously awaiting another perspective for the revival of this thread. Elaborate, Elaborate... :love:
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 17, 2003 02:59
me toooo *D
Periantari
Council Member
Posts: 18
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: July 17, 2003 10:34
But thinking about it, in movie ROTK, we will see him consumed by the Ring the most... i think PJ should've made him a bit stronger in FOTR even though there were time differences in maturing... (i still can't get over him not stabbing the Witch-king in Weathertop and the Flight to the Ford sequence :angry: ) in TTT, his deterioration in terms of succumbing to the Ring was alarmingly fast...in the book, there was no mention of him stroking the Ring and needing Sam to rescue him out of one of his spells...
my point is, seeing that the rate of submission to the Ring is so fast, perhaps in ROTK, we won't even see much strength left... :cry:

but i AM sooooo looking forward to him holding out Sting and the phial of Galadriel in Shelob's Lair
EruanwenSaeriel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 10, 2004 08:07
Boy, it's been a lonnnnnng time since anyone has posted anything to this thread. I just perused the postings. All very interesting and insightful. I agree with some and not with others.

I think the timeline issue is extremely significant in how Frodo's character was changed for the movie. Because everything was sped up so much it is unclear to me if Frodo really changed much in the movie compared to the book, or if things just happened faster so it seemed as if he became weak much more quickly.

One quibble I have had with all three movies (I have seen them all and the two Extended DVDs of the first two) is that Frodo is always falling down and always having to be protected even by the other hobbits (remember Pippin and Merry hiding him behind their bodies when the Cave Troll was trying to get him in Moria?). That is one criticism I have with PJs direction. He should have Frodo showing more fortitude physically.

What I do agree with is the Ring's influence on him and the others. I think the movie ring had to "show" much more malevolence than the one in the book because of the nature of the medium. To have the ring silent and just be inanimate would have been death to the movie plot. It had to become a character in its own right. And because of that, to have it show little influence on its bearer would also have been movie death.

What say you all?
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 11, 2004 02:21
Mmmmm.... My major problem is called Samwise Gamgee. I spend a lot of my time in the Gallery, and one comment you can read there is that 'Sam is the real hero of the story', 'Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without Sam', yadayada... I already saw that coming in TTT, as I pointed out in some of my earlier posts, and it only got worse in ROTK... I know that in those three book chapters of ROTK actually devoted to Frodo and Sam, Sam is the strong one. And that's great, because he wasn't in TTT - it only changes in the last chapter, 'The Choices of Master Samwise'. By moving the shift in balance to a much earlier point (really; the end of FOTR), this doesn't do justice to Frodo and the immense weight of his burden, or to Sam and the choices he has to make, the journey he is on.

So all in all, I *still* don't like Frodo's portrayal.
Miththoliel
Council Member
Posts: 562
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 13, 2004 11:45
I saw the movies before reading the book and do love them both for what they are. Perhaps that kept the movies from being disappointing as the books just enhanced my knowledge that had been based on the movies. But had it been the other way around, I probably would have developed some preconceived ideas about the characters and so on.

One change in Frodo that I noticed in the movies was how especially toward the end of his journey, his complexion was so pale. He didn't seem truly happy either, like he was at the beginning of FOTR. Both seemed to change after he boarded the ship at the Grey Havens....he truly looked happy & at peace, also the color returned to his face.
_LadyEowyn_
Council Member
Posts: 109
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 15, 2004 09:27
The first time I watched these movies, I was truely struck dumb by Elijah Wood's performance. He was an amazing Frodo. For an actor of his age, who started filming at 18 to portray the role of Frodo Baggins well is pretty near impossible. And in a way, the whole weight of the movie was on his shoulders. If he was wrong, then it would have all been wrong.
I think the changes in Frodo are necessary for the film, because as you can't put description in films, the actors have to show the description through acting. And anyway, the movies were true to the book on the whole, and both Frodo's work, the book one and the movie one.
So guys... don't you think we're being a little bit picky here?

[Edited on 16/8/2004 by _LadyEowyn_]
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 15, 2004 09:52
And anyway, the movies were true to the book on the whole...


You know, I keep hearing that, but I'm not at all convinced. A lot of people use this one line to wipe away all kinds of problems people have with changes in characters, in themes, in the storyline... If the movies had been 'true to the book on the whole', would so many people have protested against smaller changes?

Take Frodo for instance: Frodo is a very special kind of Hobbit. In a way, he is 'chosen'. He carries the Ring until he really can't move any further, and then Sam carries him that last long mile. That he succumbs, is both logical and totally unexpected when you read the books.
In the movies, Frodo succumbs much earlier: in TTT he tries to hand over the Ring to the Nazgul and attacks Sam. That is not Tolkien's Frodo at all, and that Frodo doesn't work for me. The scene where Frodo sends Sam away on the stairs is very typical for how different books and movies are: Frodo is always the wisest one, until he looses hope and that is only when they arrive in Mordor, after he was held at Cirith Ungol. Frodo would never choose Gollum over Sam, that is not the nature of their relationship. Frodo often sides with Gollum, tries to protect him, but this decision made in the movie is one that goes against almost everything Frodo is in the books.

That's not being nitpicky, that's saying things as they are.
EruanwenSaeriel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 16, 2004 07:09
IMHO, what I think many of are trying to say in general about the differences between the movies and the books is that this is a movie and sometimes things that happen (or don't happen) in the books would not translate well to the screen or would slow the pace down.

In the case of Frodo dismissing Sam, I think it served a special purpose and I think the writers did it deliberately - it ramped up the tension. It made the success of the "mission" even more in doubt. I think that just because something that happens is not true to the books, that it makes it, by definition, wrong.

Remember, we are discussing the movies and what made them great (or otherwise). There are many things in the movies that are completely wrong (elves at Helm's Deep is a big one) that really work in the movies and make the movies as good as they are. I know that I cringe every time I see Legolas skateboarding down the stairs but the movie makers understood that they had a wider audience to satisfy. Not everyone read the books - the balance between the respect they paid to Tolkien's word and the reality of the movie business I think was just about right.

Many Tolkienites view the movies as somehow a bastardization of the books. I think what the movies do is introduce a wider audience to the wonder of Tolkien's world. I think that is a very good thing indeed. I would be interested to see the statistics of Tolkien booksales in the last three years. I bet it's spiked.
kingslady
Council Member
Posts: 14
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 16, 2004 07:36
As always, this is MHO.

You guys have to remember that while there were millions of people who saw the films after reading the books, there were also millions who saw them and had *not* read the books - unfortunately I was one of the latter, but have now corrected that mistake. That being said, regarding the film, I don't think that I would have gotten how evil and powerful the ring actually was if Frodo had been portrayed "stronger". His weakness showed me the power of the ring. I think that a lot of the changes from the books to the movies came as a result of helping the un-read audience understand better what was going on. As well as the timeline - I'm sure that we all would love to have 10 more hours of LOTR, but try to tell a movie studio that! And it is very hard to portray thoughts and narrative story onto the big screen without actually having a narrator. That is why a lot of books don't convert well onto the big screen. Unless you've read the books, you don't get the full meaning of what's going on.

I think Peter did an excellent job of showing as much as he could in the time allowed and while keeping true to the "spirit" of the story, changing things just enough so that the non-reader would be able to figure out what was going on and follow the storyline.

Sure there were some things that I wish had been different after reading the books, but hey, when I think I am smart enough to be like PJ and tackle a project like LOTR, I will fly you all on my private jet to my mansion on my tropical island and we will all live there happily to the end of our days!:heart:
EruanwenSaeriel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 16, 2004 07:40
Well said Kingslady.
Annûniel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 417
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 16, 2004 11:32
Couldn't have said it better myself Kingslady.

We have to remember that the movies are PJ's interpretation of the books, so it might be quite different than what you interpreted. Besides, there are a lot of people that go to watch these movies and don't pay attention. I'm sure we've all had those experiences. So it has to be obvious what's going on.
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 17, 2004 08:09
I understand that. I'm not saying that within the story nothing could be changed: I liked the changes in Arwen and Aragorn for instance, but I didn't like their breaking up. But I do find it a bit odd to read your replies in a thread that deliberately discusses the changes from book to movie in the main character. The topic is not: should we compare. We are comparing, in which case I find some (if not most) changes made to Frodo to be unnecessary and damaging to the character, the story and its themes.

Just edited to say: I'm not trying to go all mean on you guys or something, just wanted to reply to what you wrote. I do understand - but sometimes I feel a little cornered by those who say we shouldn't compare.

[Edited on 17/8/2004 by Figwit]
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 17, 2004 09:52
Yes, figwit is quite right. As the whole point of this thread is to discuss the changes made to Frodo from the BookFrodo to MovieFrodo and how they then effected the others, there is no reason _not_ to discuss our opinions about said changes. As long as all is being discussed in a rational, civil manner of course Great discussion guys!
Annûniel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 417
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 17, 2004 10:25
Ahh... Good point. I was just trying to point out that the changes that Frodo's character undergoes is mostly due to the fact that a lot of the viewers haven't read the books, and therefore will not know what's going on. Which means the changes have to show what's happening to Frodo; what the Ring is doing to him. So I was just trying to give a reason for the changes.

On a side note, I have yet to feel like anyone's comments are rude or mean. Discussions always felt very civil to me, which is why I love these forums so much! :love:
Figwit
Book Club Moderator & Misty Mountain Monster
Posts: 1966
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 17, 2004 10:00
Well, Luthien, I suppose your point is correct (it's also the scriptwriters') but I'm still strongly opposed to some changes.
For instance: in the book Frodo only really starts to succumb under the Ring's burden after Sam frees him from the Tower. Sam, on the other hand, only becomes his heroic self once he's out there without his Mister Frodo.
I understand an audience would go: that's wrong, because that one Hobbits doesn't seem to be burdened by the Ring and that Gollum creature goes all berserk over it. And what's the fat Hobbit doing there anyway?
So I understand it's necessary to show that the Ring ís affecting Frodo. But that's not exactly the same as making him hand it over to a Nazgul or attempt to kill Sam at the end of the second movie (which is only halfway through the Two Towers anyway). It makes the journey even less credible, because if Frodo is so heavily burdened in the second movie, then how does he manage to get to Mount Doom?

Does that make sense? I'm certain there could have been a more subtle solution, staying closer to the spirit of Tolkien's books and not underestimating the audience the way they did now.
Annûniel
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 417
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: changes in Frodo
on: August 18, 2004 02:42
I hear what you are saying. It is hard to believe that Frodo would have gone so far if he had been affected so early on. But at every point when he wants to use the Ring, there's a Nazgul nearby. [[Well except at the very end... but that's something else entirely.]]

There's a connection between the Nazgul and the Ring that is more apparent in the movies, but it exists in the books as well. The only difference being that in the books, Frodo doesn't encounter the Nazgul as much. At the same time, Tolkien never described in full detail what was going on in any of his character's minds. 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. So its very possible that anyone could believe Frodo was starting to feel the weight of the Ring as early as he was shown to in the movies.

Though I will say I absolutely hated the Nazgul scene at Osgiliath at the end of TTT. First off, it was a bit extreme. Second, why would one arrow make the Nazgul fly away? Ahh... Stupid scene. I wanted to eat it. Sam's speech at the end was beautiful, but I do wish they had not put that part in there. Ah well, we can't have everything, can we?
12
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email