Frodo in the Book/Frodo in the movie

[Clansman]

Truly, all four hobbits were the heroes of the book version of LOTR. Merry was instrumental in the fall of the Witch King. Without Merry, Eowyn could not have vanquished the Lord of the Nazgul. And Pippin's role in the defense of Minas Tirith cannot be underestimated, particularly when it comes to the rescue of Faramir from Denethor's despair.

The story showcases the resilience, fortitude and character strength of each of the hobbits, who are forever changed by their experiences. Going back to the Shire, and finding it a shambles (not untouched by the War of the Ring as Mr. Jackson would tell it), and needing their help. Even then, they seem to find it just a bit "quaint", despite it being home. It was never home again for Frodo, and for a time for Sam, and even Merry and Pippin felt compelled to return to the lands of Rohan and Gondor later in their lives. They were no longer just hobbits, but something much more.

The story is as much about their being changed by their experiences as it is anything else. This is not entirely missing from the movies, particularly Return of the King, when it comes to Sam, Merry and Pippin (though Merry never made it to the Black Gate). It is almost completely missing for Frodo.

Hopefully some day, when the film rights lapse, someone will do "J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings", and stay as faithful as is possible to the real story.

[River Boy]

And both Merry and Pippin take credit for getting the Ents involved of course.

[Boaz]

Originally Posted by Catswold

Oh yeah, you touched a nerve in this thread.

I am constantly amazed at the hubris of so many screen-writers to believe that they are in any way better writers than those authors of the books the desecrate when they "re-write" to make them "better."

I don't know that there is "a hero" in the book, but certainly Samwise was the "stout and loyal yeoman" to Frodo's resolute, noble, long-suffering hero character. In truth, I believe that the "hero" was/were Hobbits.

It was their deep inner strength, indomitable and incorruptible spirit, that were central to the success of the quest (I know I'm stating the obvious).

Glorfindel, I agree, was the most intriguing underused character in the series. I always wondered what an elf-lord (First Born) in all his might would have been like. Tolkien pretty much "cops out" in his description, but it must be an awesome and frightening sight to behold.

The books that I've read that were made into films that were as good as the books are "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "The Body"/"Stand by Me", "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"/"The Shawshank Redemption", and maybe "The Green Mile". Prison, confinement, death, life, and hope are strong themes.

To me, Samwise is the hero of the story. Frodo and Aragorn are both prophesied characters. Gandalf is an angel. Death, hearbreak, loss of innocence, and worry accompanied their journeys, but they were endowed by Eru or the Valar with success. Sam, on the other hand, is not from the Undying Lands nor is he mentioned in prophecy.

Boromir was trained from birth to be hero. Legolas, Gimli, Faramir, Imrahil, Eomer, and Glorfindel had all the gifts their societies could afford them, yet they were not the ones to see the Ringbearer through. Saruman knew all the secrets of the Enemy, yet he could not muster the willpower to resist. Denethor was the wisest of men, yet he succumbed to despair.

Sam was trained to be a gardener. He did not have all the cultural gifts of the hobbits... he only had a weskit, some pans, and some Elvish items... a knife, a cloak, a rope, and the relected light of a silmaril. Sam only knew that Sauron was evil, he did not need to know the subtleties of the Ring. Sam was unschooled, yet he clung to hope.

I don't mean to take away from the bravery of the other heroes. Gandalf gave his life for Frodo. Boromir repented and then gave his life for Frodo's kinsmen. Theoden fought off despair and died with honor. Aragorn shouldered the burden of leading men to their almost certain deaths and he risked the future of all Free Peoples in Middle-earth. Merry and Pippin grew up and put their lives and honor on the line. Legolas and Gimli learned to judge each other individually and not by racial profiles... and they stayed the course.

Yet, take a look at their combined pedigrees. Angel, Eldar, royalty, and nobility. Frodo is the poorest prepared next to Sam... Frodo is only landed gentry.

Sam is so unqualified to be a member of the Fellowship, let alone the one to see Frodo to the end, that it's laughable.

Speaking of Frodo, he is the suffering servant. He did not want to be the savior of Middle-earth. He wanted that cup to pass from him, yet he drank because no one else would or could. He went facing his own death, denying his own comfortable life. And when he succeeded beyond all dreams and hopes, he was so wounded that he could not find peace even in The Shire.

Gandalf and Aragorn are also types of Christ, the sacrificed priest and the conquering king respectively. But I'll not go into that now.

But once again, I'll say that Frodo was prophsied to defeat Sauron and Sam clung to that hope when Frodo did not. Sam's tenacious spirit and continual ability to just do the next task allowed him to remain free from despair when everyone else only saw the improbablility of actually defeating a fallen angel and his hordes.

Finally, I'll say in Tolkien's defence that Glorfindel was an Elven lord from Aman. Even if you hold to the two Glorfindels theory, the Glorfindel at the Crossings of Bruinen, was a powerful elf who gave Sauron's greatest servants cause for doubt. Sending Glorfindel, Erestor, Gildor, or even Elrond himself east of Anduin would have been like ringing Sauron's doorbell. I wonder if Gandalf could have even gone to Mordor without showing up on Sauron's radar. Any use of power, Elven, Angelic, and especially The Ring, was risky so close to the Barad-dur. Only Sauron's assault upon Gondor allowed Sam's use of the Phial of Galadriel to escape Sauron's notice.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Catswold

Why create a role in the movie which already is filled by another character?

But Eowyn would still be only one heroic female to illustrate the strength and courage of the entire gender.

I like Arwen at the ford. I didn't care for the rest of her scenes, but her ride with Frodo seemed to me to be a neat way to expand her role (so that she didn't seem to come out of nowhere as Aragorn's bride, as she does in the book), replacing a character who is simply a walk-on in LOTR, and only has relevance for those who have read the Sil. (And even then, it's not absolutely certain that he was that Glorfindel.)

Originally Posted by Boaz

Sam's tenacious spirit and continual ability to just do the next task allowed him to remain free from despair

I think that's one of the most important messages in the entire trilogy: Do the next task. Do the task that is given to, the one that is at hand. You can't know what is happening everywhere else, and you can only have faith that others are doing what they can. (And if they aren't, there is no use abandoning the task at hand anyway.)

When Aragorn chooses to follow and (try) to rescue Merry and Pippin, he is doing the task that is given to him. For all that he has doubts about it all along the way, he instinctively knows what he is meant to do and does it. It's the combination of each character doing his own task that makes it possible for Frodo to carry the ring as far as the Cracks of Doom.

As it turns out, that is Frodo's task: to get the Ring that far. He's not capable, he could never be capable, of casting it into the volcano. He does what he can do.

I'm not sure what I feel about the part where he fights Gollum for the Ring in the movie. I'm quite sure that movie-goers would not accept that Gollum just happened to mistake his footing and fall in -- and few, if any (who had not read and pondered the books) would understand how fitting that ending is. But the change in the movie changes the power of Frodo's earlier act of mercy.

Still, it allows Frodo to show a little fight there at the end of the quest.

[The Procrastinator]

I think Movie Frodo falls victim to Jackson's desire to "show" the power of the Ring in visual form - the whole addiction thing being given physical reality. Book Frodo has a much more inner, private fight. While I can understand this I wish he hadn't taken it as far as he did. Movie Frodo became Victim Frodo pretty early on. Book Frodo struggles against the Ring right up until the end, when he finally succumbs, only to be "saved" by Gollum, the unlikely catspaw of fate. Movie Frodo, on the other hand, really gives the impression of having given up a long time ago. Its almost as though something is dragging him to Mount Doom. Book Frodo drags himself (with Sam's invaluable help).

Even though I love the films and I doubt we'll see a better version, I do regret the lack of subtlety throughout, and the Frodo thing is one of the chief offenders in this regard. Tolkien's lighter touch was replaced with a heavier hand.

[Boaz]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

I think that's one of the most important messages in the entire trilogy: Do the next task. Do the task that is given to, the one that is at hand. You can't know what is happening everywhere else, and you can only have faith that others are doing what they can. (And if they aren't, there is no use abandoning the task at hand anyway.)

When Aragorn chooses to follow and (try) to rescue Merry and Pippin, he is doing the task that is given to him. For all that he has doubts about it all along the way, he instinctively knows what he is meant to do and does it. It's the combination of each character doing his own task that makes it possible for Frodo to carry the ring as far as the Cracks of Doom.

As it turns out, that is Frodo's task: to get the Ring that far. He's not capable, he could never be capable, of casting it into the volcano. He does what he can do.

I'm not sure what I feel about the part where he fights Gollum for the Ring in the movie. I'm quite sure that movie-goers would not accept that Gollum just happened to mistake his footing and fall in -- and few, if any (who had not read and pondered the books) would understand how fitting that ending is. But the change in the movie changes the power of Frodo's earlier act of mercy.

Still, it allows Frodo to show a little fight there at the end of the quest.

That's what I meant to say, Teresa. Great post.

[Catswold]

The portrayed weakness of Frodo is one of the most egregious examples of bad screenwriting--the change is unnecessary and capricious in my opinion. I can't imagine what Peter Jackson was thinking in turning Frodo into a puppet.

I guess I shouldn't take it so personally, but I was really offended by almost everything Jackson chose to change. The whole Frodo believing Gollum over Samwise and sending him away . . . and Samwise actually leaving . . . it was all completely out of character.

First, Frodo was strong enough to resist the ring and would never trust Gollum beyond a certain point. Second, Samwise would never have left Frodo's side, no matter what Frodo said or did--at worst, he would have followed Frodo at a distance to watch over his "master."

Really absurd stuff.

Hate the movies with a passion--the special effects simply can't compensate for how badly the tale was corrupted.

Besides, I could never get past "Agent Smith" being cast as Elrond.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Catswold

Hate the movies with a passion--the special effects simply can't compensate for how badly the tale was corrupted.

I always wonder why people torture themselves by sitting all the way through something they hate. Especially three long movies worth!

You must have a higher threshold for pain than I do.

I have mixed feelings about the entire movie trilogy. The parts I loved I really loved (which is why I kept going back), and for the parts I particularly disliked my distaste never quite reached the point of hating them.

And then with some of the parts that really disappointed me, others were quite thrilled with them, so it's hard to say they did them wrong.

The scenes of Frodo and Sam crossing Mordor disappointed me. I thought there should be more prolonged suffering there before Frodo fell down and Sam had to carry him. Mordor never looked the way that I thought it would. But I've never heard anyone complain about either of those things. (Hoping to see some of that here.) People get more worked up about the absence of Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil.

[svalbard]

I much preferred Book Frodo to Movie Frodo. Yet I can understand why he changed it and included extra scenes with Arwen. This was a big Hollywood production meant to appeal to the masses. Whilst Tolkien's trilogy is massively popular it is still a Fantasy story and this is a niche market. Jackson had to broaden that appeal for the project to work. Overall he, I thought he did a cracking job.

My visions of The Charge of the Roherrim at the Pelenor Fields was brought gloriously to life, nightmares of the Mines of Moria were visualized and ultimately the movies re-kindled my love of Middle-Earth.

[wiley]

i liked the movies a great deal, even though i didn't like frodo at times and think he is way too young. but i think peter jackson is a great director who did an amazing job!

[Overread]

I think the physical manifestation of the Ring and its power upon Frodo was an important change for the films. I think the difference is its very easy in a book to go behind the characters eyes and view from their minds eye. When it comes to a film though, and a film with multiple points of view not just a single character view, its a lot harder to do. You can do it, but the film is likely to gain a lot of longer, drawn out spoken parts which will take time away from the action and more lively parts.

As readers and book fans I suspect we would not worry about that in the least and would welcome such - however a movie maker also has to cater to the wider audience after the more visual medium. Further the squishing of 3 books into just 3 films is a big feat without trying to add a lot of reflective behind the characters face content.


I think that, in the end, the biggest lacking of the films was to fail to mature the hobbits to the end and to have the scouring of the Shire. Whilst their roles were diminished through the film, I feel that for all their great feats in Middle Earth, its not really until they come home and carry those feats to their own front door that they really mature into the full heros of their kind.
To me the lack of the Scouring is the only real major weakness of the movie adaptations. The rest I feel are generally worthwhile changes to squish things in.

I could have been done differently, it could have been changed differently and they could have taken a more serious role with several characters (Gimlie). But in the end what they presented mostly did work for carrying the story into the visual world and yet it also leaves the door wide open for someone to follow.

[River Boy]

Originally Posted by Overread

I think that, in the end, the biggest lacking of the films was to fail to mature the hobbits to the end and to have the scouring of the Shire. Whilst their roles were diminished through the film, I feel that for all their great feats in Middle Earth, its not really until they come home and carry those feats to their own front door that they really mature into the full heros of their kind.
To me the lack of the Scouring is the only real major weakness of the movie adaptations. The rest I feel are generally worthwhile changes to squish things in.

Seeing as Jack Nicholson walked out because of 'too many endings', I'm not sure non-book fans would have been in agreement.

[INed]

The difference of the book's Frodo and the movie's Frodo is due to Tolkien's absence. I'm more then sure that if the movie was directed when he was alive a lot of things would be remained untouched.
As a writer, I wouldn't allow anyone to make such innovations with characters. because it's important to keep the originality.
The movie's Frodo appears like Joan of Arc, weak one.

[Lilmizflashythang]

I have a bad habit. I have to finish something I've started. But I hated the movies. Everything was wrong. Nothing went right.

[mosaix]

The whole thing can be explained by the Elijah Wood's complete inability to act. Talk about wooden! The screen-writers must have groaned when they saw who they were writing for.