How much Frodo grew...

[elfwishes999]

Did anyone else catch how Frodo grew during the trilogy? to me he grew from the little unknown, unadventurous, school-boy hobbit to the hero of middle earth..frodo was once a soft, friendly, almost too- nice- for -comfort hobbit...and then he became the harder, more secret, and more cautious hobbit he was in the third movie.. i also think sam helped frodo to reach the harder character he in the the RotK..

*How do you see Frodo growing? the same as i do? or different??

[Noxomanus]

In my opinion,movie-Frodo did only grow in one way....he grew into the weakest and wimpest character of all. Everytime something happened he went unconscious or 'couldn't take it anymore'

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Basically, all he did in the movies was fall over, or faint, or come across like an idiot (Gollum's lembas saga).

I don't think he grew at all. Granted, Frodo is not an easy character to build on film, but he was still a disappointment.

[elfwishes999]

frodo may have been weak but you have to remember he was carrying the ring and its powers were taking hold of him.. that and he was injured about 300 times during the trip to mordor and the climb to mount doom...so just because he passed out a few times doesn't mean he was the weakest character!!

[Bêthberry]

How much? Not much, given what Jackson and Wood and the script writers had to work with from the books.

He did diminish, though, didn't he, losing a finger.

[The Only Real Estel]

In my opinion,movie-Frodo did only grow in one way....he grew into the weakest and wimpest character of all. Everytime something happened he went unconscious or 'couldn't take it anymore'

Sounds more to me like you're describing the side-affects of carrying the Ring farther & farther into Mordor instead of casting it away & sprinting for home like a weak, wimpy character would do who couldn't take it anymore.

I don't think that Frodo came across as growing a whole lot, you can attribute that to PJ or Wood or Phillipa or Fran, whoever you want, but Frodo seemed to grow stronger only minimully. The character who really growed in the movies was Sam, but that not particularily on topic ;).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

He grew precisely 2.3 cm.

(I measured.)

[Nirvana II]

to me he grew from the little unknown, unadventurous, school-boy hobbit to the hero of middle earth..frodo was once a soft, friendly, almost too- nice- for -comfort hobbit...and then he became the harder, more secret, and more cautious hobbit he was in the third movie..


wouldnt that be considered shrinking? soft, friendly hobbit...to hard, secret, cautious, seems like shrinking to me

[Bombadil]

Perhaps I'd call it growth, but I'd rather call it drastic change. One thing I like to do is, when Frodo is in Sam's arms on the slopes of Mount Doom (when they're talking of strawberries and cream) I think back to way in the begnning of Fellowship - to the happy Frodo saying, "It's wonderful to see you Gandalf!" The length of the movies really add to the affect.

I think Peter Jackson did an awesome job showing change- whether it be good, bad, accurate or inaccurate - by showing the sublime Frodo go to one of misery. He hardly smiled past the council of Elrond, and never gave a true smile until the concluision of ROTK. One aspect I really thought showed Frodo's change (and emotional strength) was at the Havens when all the hobbits were crying because they were going to miss their friends. Frodo had to say goodbye to his 3 dearest friends, and didn't shed a tear.

[Bêthberry]

He grew precisely 2.3 cm.


Of hair, Fordim, or of fingernail? Or did you mean height? Do hobbits still, once out of their 'tween, grow taller?

[Imladris]

He grew precisely 2.3 cm.

Or could you possibly mean width?

[Amanaduial the archer]

I think great thought went into Frodo's growth throughout the film.

I mean, making the wig suddenly grow so drastically couldn't have happened merely by chance.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The filmmakers focused only on the growing despair of Frodo, not the growing....maturity? Is that the right word? I don't think it is, but maybe you'll follow me.

[Amanaduial the archer]

Interesting point Eomer - moving away from all speculations of Frodo's width, height, length, fingernails, hair and, let's face it, it was only a matter of time before toenails came in...

They did concentrate solely on the draining effects of the ring throughout, it seemed - I mean, yes, towards the end of the Return of the King, when he 'abandoned' Sam, they brought in the slightly twisted, slightly evil element as the ring took control of Frodo (and apparently did very odd things to his eyes as well...). But it was only at the very end of the trilogy, when Frodo had got home and was musing on his time away and on how it felt to be back, that you saw that he really had grown, and had changed, from the quest and from the strain of bearing the ring. True, it was very nicely done then, I personally though, but it was a little too late maybe - he had come across merely as whingy throughout the majority of the films that he was maybe a little too far pushed to be redeemed for some people.

They did concentrate on the development of the other hobbits though, and that was seen in more gradual stages throughout - you can almost mark the milestones for each of the hobbits, especially Pippin. Obviously, he was the easiest to change, but they did do it very nicely - it wasn't an instant alteration from carefree-and-slightly-moronic to serious, grim-faced warrior: even near the end of the trilogy, Pippin retained some of his carefree, childish innocence - for example, after the episode with the Palantir where he effectively gave away their position like a flaming beacon...he responded with "I won't do it again". That line just made me smile because he was so sweet. But you could see him gradually maturing. The same goes for Merry, although maybe the first stages of maturity for him were covered earlier on in the films than with Pippin.

And Sam...well, I think Sam was just Sam. Not an insult ;)

[Umwë]

In my opinion,movie-Frodo did only grow in one way....he grew into the weakest and wimpest character of all. Everytime something happened he went unconscious or 'couldn't take it anymore'

Exactly my opinion too, I think he just grew weaker! After all he had the Ring, the Ring was a burden for him to carry.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Exactly, most skilled Archer! It came too late in the day. Frodo could really have used some growth in The Two Towers.

[Amanaduial the archer]

Exactly, most skilled Archer! It came too late in the day. Frodo could really have used some growth in The Two Towers.
Oh, I don't know about that, Eomer. It could have made it rather more difficult for them to slip past the Watchers later on if he grew any taller...:p

Umwe - you say you back the idea that Frodo should have been a weak character in the film due to his burden of carrying the ring?

I would actually disagree - the way Frodo came out as so very weak seemed, I thought, to make it less believable that he actually was able to carry the ring: surely if he was so weak he would have broken and given into it? I thought they could have played on his character growing to fight the effects of the ring - the ring must have grown on him with time, to strengthen it's effect, so one would think that he would have to grow accordingly to fight it's effects.

(Also Umwe, apologies for not getting the little dots over the 'e' in your name, I have given up trying to work out how to do them on a laptop - and it's a sort of case of start as you mean to go on)

[Umwë]

Umwe - you say you back the idea that Frodo should have been a weak character in the film due to his burden of carrying the ring?


Yes, he is the weaker character, at least in the Return of the King. And that is because of the Ring. He grew weaker during the movies, from the start to the end. Yet he got braver even though the ring made him weaker both mental and physical. That's my point!


(Also Umwe, apologies for not getting the little dots over the 'e' in your name, I have given up trying to work out how to do them on a laptop - and it's a sort of case of start as you mean to go on)


Hehe:D That's allright :P

[Rimbaud]

..and the Bebe-licious One as well, of course.

I think the filmmakers did not achieve as intended with regard to character development; this is despite, ironically, upsetting Faramir purists, purely for the sake of 'character development'. This idea of 'growth' through a film has become an obsession for many filmmakers and studios, often to the detriment of movies where it isn't an apt element...but I digress. In this case, as I think has been tacitly accepted above, the true measure of personal growth, in the book, is through the hobbit Frodo.

A case can be made for that of Aragorn, yet it is nto half so finely a drawn development through the text.

Yet although a comparison between the film-Frodo of the opening to FOTR and the closing (one of the many endings :rolleyes: ) to ROTK will show what would appear a distinct change in the character, that development is not linear through the film in the same way it is in the book.

In the film, from Weathertop, Frodo is essentially a constant sad-eyed victim; this is patently not the case through the remainder of the novel. This is a great pity, for there are many fine things about the films but this was a central tenet that they were obliged to 'get 'right', and rather reluctantly, I posit that the team did not.

[Essex]

For me Frodo did not show the same 'growth' as the other 3 hobbits. Remember they were younger than him. Hobbit's coming of age is 33.

When they set out

Frodo was 50
Merry 36
Sam 35
Pippin 28

(Note that Frodo was also older than Boromir, Faramir, Eomer and Eoywn).

Our coming of age is usually set at 18. Who is grown up at this age? VERY FEW. So Sam and Merry were barely adults, and technically Pippin was still a child. No wonder we can see their growth in the books and movies. Frodo was a more mature adult at 50.

So I put it to you, book wise, that Frodo himself had very little 'growing' to do as a character. He seems to me, in the book as well as the film, to be a character that seems fully developed once he leaves Bag End with the Ring.

In the film, I think we see him grow somewhat the second he says 'What must I do'. And the melancholy I always feel during Frodo's last scene in Bag End also shows film-wise to me how he has grown.

PS Amanaduial, copy and paste Umwë and it will work!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

You make a good point Essex, that Frodo actually had little growing to do. In that case, I will have to say that I thought Frodo was missing something important all the way through the films. Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting.

[Bêthberry]

This reminds me that I still owe a reply to Essex on a thread from about six weeks ago when I suddenly had to disappear for a bit. I do enjoy our different perspectives, Essex.

No wonder we can see their growth in the books and movies. Frodo was a more mature adult at 50.

So I put it to you, book wise, that Frodo himself had very little 'growing' to do as a character. He seems to me, in the book as well as the film, to be a character that seems fully developed once he leaves Bag End with the Ring.

Your argument here seems to depend upon the idea that an adult--or hobbit--in middle age has learned about all he or she needs to learn, about the world or about himself or herself.

I would suggest instead that growth in awareness about oneself or about the world comes not from merely living a certain number of years but from intense experience and interaction with people, events, dramas, challenges, tragedies. There are those whose lives are set and so they do not change beyond middle age. And then there are those who experience tremendous change, upheaval, loss, struggle. Here then is the crucible where they discover just how much they know about themselves and grow in wisdom.

Frodo, the reckless tween who would cheekily steal mushrooms, assumes a quest when he has not 'settled down into regular hobbit habits' and without at the time quite understanding what burden he is accepting. At the very least, he must learn how to stay true to his decision in the face of terrible odds. Or, he must learn what the cost is of his decision.

[Lalaith]

To go back to Essex's point about the ages of the hobbits and also that the 'coming of age' was 33. At the time of Tolkien's writing, our coming of age was actually 21.
So how would we translate the ages of our hobbits into 'man years'?
By my reckoning, the actors playing Merry and Sam should have been, or at least look, in their early twenties, and Pippin in his late teens.
Obviously Frodo should not look like a fifty-year-old man, but he should look older than the other hobbits, in his early thirties perhaps.
In the film, I think Pippin looked about right to me, but Merry and Sam were a shade too old and Frodo much, much too young.
And to go back to the original question of the thread (of course! ;) ) movie-Frodo did grow somewhat, but should certainly not have started out giving the impression of being a schoolboy. Which, I agree, he did.
Because (as I said before somewhere else) would Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond really have entrusted the most dangerous thing in middle-earth to a schoolboy?

[tar-ancalime]

This idea of 'growth' through a film has become an obsession for many filmmakers and studios, often to the detriment of movies where it isn't an apt element...

Yes! Thank you! Bravo! Well done! I concur! Lauds and acclamations!

I tried to make this point several weeks ago in a thread about Faramir but, sadly, no one wanted to play with me.

The obsession with "arc" totally denies the idea that there are other kinds of stories in the world--and it's one of the areas where I think PJ made his worst mistakes. Aragorn, Faramir, Frodo, Theoden--these are not characters in a romantic comedy who need two hours to figure out what they really want. But in each case, PJ inserted a story line to make them do just that.

In the books, it seems to me, Frodo's growth is subtle and often symbolic: he is continually given gifts throughout the story (the Ring, for one, then being named an Elf-Friend, then Sting and the mithril coat, then the Light of Earendil), and he's also injured or attacked continually, and each time he comes through an injury or is given another gift, it shows his growth. In the movies, these things happen but their significance is diminished by Frodo's constant appearance after Weathertop (I think I"m agreeing with Rimbaud again here) as a head-lolling, pale-faced Ring vehicle.

[Essex]

tar-ancalime, I think the problem one has in converting book to MOVIE nesessitates Frodo as "head-lolling, pale-faced" after Weathertop is that how can we show Frodo gradually declining in health over a 12 day period in a 3 hour movie? It's impossible, and would kill the film.

Over the past 3 years, in discussions on these type of websites, and listening to the director/scriptwriters reasons, I'm begining to get an understanding of film making, and how a straight copy of book - movie would not work.

I'm putting together a script (purely for my own purposes of seing how hard it is) for a long winded series of LOTR, sticking as close to the text (and trying to use ALL of it) as possible. I'm also trying this without a NARRATOR'S voice, which makes it VERY difficult.

Just looking at the begining chapter, how do I show Bilbo welcoming Frodo into the fold without straying from the text? How do I show Frodo visiting different places, meeting with elves and dwarves after the Party and before Gandalf's 'final' visit? Indeed, how do I show the 17 year period between the Party and Bag End without a narration?

Jackson cleverly used narration where it was absolutely nessessary. ie the Prolouge, Gandalf's reading of the scrolls in minas tirith, and the "60 years Later" subtitle at the start of the film. They all worked. He could have put in "17 years later" to show the gap between party and leaving, but that would have looked silly.

And finally, to get back to my point, how could he have put "12 days later" before Arwen (Glorfindel) turned up?

PS Eomer, I think you're being a tad unfair to Elijah re: Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting I feel Mr Wood showed some of the best acting in the movies. So what if it is done with his face. All great actors are able to show a host of feelings/moods without having to say a word. Just look at Sir Ian's acting.

The tear on Frodo's face when he says 'here at the end of all things' makes me cry every time. Frodo crawling up the mountain. Frodo's look at the cracks of doom. Frodo realising the trouble he is in when he says "What must I do?" Frodo accepting the challenge "I will take the Ring". Frodo's snatching of the ring from Boromir. Frodo's smile at the start and begining of the movies. And most of all, the most scariest, atmospheric, well acted line in the movie: "I'm here, Sam" at the Sammath Naur. That line sends a shiver down my spine every time I hear it. Just listen to the inflections in his voice when he says it. Absolutely marvellous. And yes, he is good at rolling his eyes, but again, that's another sign of good acting. Anyway, end of rant!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Essex, I appreciate that comment and I realise that my earlier post was unfair to Elijah Wood. I actually am not as hard on Elijah as that would suggest (certainly not as harsh as some other Downers). I agree that Elijah did display some quality acting, and I should have made that clear earlier. However, I maintain that the numerous 'eye movements' (these - :rolleyes: ) were poor, and I do think that Frodo could have been a lot better.

I do think that this discussion becomes a microcosm for the whole film. I think Elijah was good, but not as good as he should have been. It's harsh to criticise such a good film, but compared to the visualisation I had in my mind, it was a poor imitation. This is an inevitable consequence of the project. I have great respect for everyone involved in the films, but this is not enough.

Talk about hard to please! :p

[tar-ancalime]

Essex, you're absolutely right that the filmmakers couldn't indicate the twelve-day interval without wasting a lot of time. Perhaps I was being a little harsh this morning.

Also, I understand that a movie adaptation can never be completely identical to a book--characters must say things in the movie that the author tells the reader directly in the book, and usually some elements must be omitted for time, simplicity, or other reasons. But I just don't see how it was helpful for PJ to invent new storylines and manufacture arcs for so many of the characters, when Tolkien provided so much material to begin with.

That sounds like a massive project you're undertaking! Good luck!

[Lalaith]

I'm with Rimbaud and tar-ancalime on the growth issue. Tar-ancalime, the movie changes you mention were precisely the ones that riled me most, and for exactly the reasons you mention. It's also all about this modern conviction that 'weak morals and purpose are interesting, strong morals and purpose are boring.' (Dear me, I sound like my own grandmother...)
So because weak = interesting, Frodo spends half the films rolling around in psychological agony or trying to give the ring to passing Nazgul, Faramir is tempted by the ring, Theoden sulks in his tent and Aragorn just wants to stay plain ol' Strider.

Ironically, when there really *is* character growth in the text (Merry and Pippin, Eowyn) it was disappointingly portrayed in the film: by confusing a carefree nature with plain stupidity (in the case of M&P); or by failing to show either the extent of the initial psychological problem or the happy final transformation (in the case of Eowyn).

(By the by, a friend who is a writer recently sent me the blurb for her new book which had a sentence something along the lines of "along the way X's journey becomes a personal voyage of discovery". I told her to take it out because it was cheesy and pedestrian, and she did. I feel I have struck a blow for the 'anti-growth' brigade.)

[Essex]

Lalaith, I think I can 'hear' jest in your last post, so I'll take what you said regarding Frodo trying to give the ring to passing Nazgul, Faramir is tempted by the ringwith a pinch of salt, but:

Frodo was not giving the ring to the nazgul. I think he was being tempted/forced to put on the ring so that the Nazgul could 'see' him properly. (I still think this is one of the most weakest points in the film, and it really stinks!)

But Faramir WAS tempted by the Ring in the book. People are confusing Faramir dragging Frodo all the way to Osgilliath being wrong (which it was) with his 'temptation' being wrong (which was NOT).

Faramir is a man of his word. He said he would not pick up the 'thing' if it were lying on the highway BEFORE HE KNEW WHAT IT REALLY WAS, but then after finding out what is was by Sam's slip up (and Faramir's superb interrogation techniques) he then kept to his word. But he WAS tempted. Read the chapter again with this in mind, and I then hope you will agree with me. here's a quote to explain my point:

`So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way – to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality! Ha!' He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.
Frodo and Sam sprang from their stools and set themselves side by side with their backs to the wall, fumbling for their sword-hilts. There was a silence. All the men in the cave stopped talking and looked towards them in wonder. But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again.
'Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial! ' he said. `How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt._ Not if I found it on the highway would I take it_ I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.
'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted, Samwise. If you seem to have stumbled, think that it was fated to be so. Your heart is shrewd as well as faithful, and saw clearer than your eyes. For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough.'Hey, my post has gone off on a tangent again.

PS We mainly see Merry and Pippin's growth in the penultimate chapter of LOTR, ie the Scouring of the Shire. With Jackson's decision to remove this from the film, we, alas, do not see their and (to some extent) Sam's full growth. This is a pity.

[Rimbaud]

On the other hand, I think they captured Gandalf's change rather nicely. Or perhaps that was just McKellen doing McKellen. But still...

[elfwishes999]

you know, when i started this thread, i thought that there would be some people out there who would agree with me...but, alas, all of the responses are totally against what i was thinking!! but, you can't agree with them all. and there is also a great deal of talk about merry and pippins growth and i totally see that. i watched bits and pieces of all 3 movies yesterday, and i eventually saw how pippin like became stronger in a way. he wasn't the FOOL OF A TOOK he was in the first movie by the third movie. so yea, i agree with everyone on merry and pippin. but someone said Gandalf changed? i dont agree with that. gandalf was like the same guy the whole trilogy! :rolleyes:

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Don't you think Gandalf seemed more powerful and majestic by the end?

[Noxomanus]

Yes he did...just as in the book. In the beginning he was wise,at the end he was wise and powerful.

[The Saucepan Man]

i thought that there would be some people out there who would agree with me...Well, I agree to an extent, elfwishes999. Frodo's character did develop through the three films. At the beginning, he was portrayed as young and naive. And, as the trilogy unfolded, he became more mature, responsible and wise. This becomes particularly evident when the Fellowship breaks up and he begins to take more control of the situation. As in the book, he heeds Gandalf's words and shows pity to Gollum. Although the scene where he sends Sam away does slightly mar this, he nevertheless shows pity once more when Gollum attacks him outside Shelob's lair.

But, and this is a big but, his growth as a character is somewhat overshadowed by the extent to which he succumbs to the Ring. I can understand why the film-makers chose to play this up, as they wanted to bring out the power of the Ring (hence the changes to Faramir too). But, to my mind, he "degenerated" far too much far too soon (which was what really overshadowed his growth as a character) and it was also handled rather unsubtly. Where he should have been showing courage and resolve, he was simply rolling his eyes and falling over on his backside.

In addition, because he starts off a lot less mature than the book Frodo, he grows to a much lesser extent than book Frodo. He has much further to go, but never really gets there. Accordingly, although he makes "world-weary" comments in his narrative at the end of RotK, they do not quite ring true and his departure to the Undying Lands makes a lot less sense than it does in the book.

Frodo's character in the film also, I think, suffers from the lack of some of his wonderful dialogue in the book, particularly his exchange with Faramir in Henneth Anun. Time constraints, I suppose, but I would have liked to have seen some of his more substantial dialogue included.

All of this, I think, is attributable more to the film-makers than it is to Elijah Wood. I cannot really fault his acting, more the way in which he portrayed (or was asked to portray) the character. As for his appearance, I have no difficulty with a young Frodo since, in the book, he was (like Bilbo) very "well-preserved" when he set off from the Shire. But it seems to me that Wood lacked the maturity and experience to portray the inner wisdom that book Frodo had, even at the start fo his journey. Hence, film Frodo appears young (in character) and naive at the start.

Having said all that, I can appreciate film Frodo as a character in the film (except the excessive falling over and eye rolling). It's just that he is a quite different Frodo from book Frodo, just as the story told in the film is a quite different story to that told in the book.

And, finally, I really do have to give Wood great credit for his performance from the "Wheel of Fire" speech through to their rescue by the Eagles. His acting in these scenes, I thought, was exceptional and perhaps the closest he got to capturing book Frodo.

[elfwishes999]

Elijah Wood seemed to substitute scary eye movement in place of quality acting.

I wouldn't say that exactly. Elijah was just simply acting the way that he acts. I think he did a VERY WELL JOB on the movie, and when we talk about Frodo here, we talk about how Elijah Wood portrays him and i think some (or most people) would agree that Elijah did a very nice job as Frodo. (he did a good job of memorizing the lines) and frodo AS THE CHARACTER THEY WROTE i thought was the one who grew. Just from watching parts in FotR and RotK i kinda saw a change in character in frodo.. :p

[Kransha]

I haven't posted in 'The Movies' in a VERY long time. But, this topic's a-callin'.

I very much disliked the movie 'growth' of Frodo. Book-Frodo was older, more experienced than the other three hobbits. He was the oldest indeed, and thus, on technicality, one of the wisest. He was jovial, somewhat naive about the surrounding world, but all Haflings were. In the movie, his original personality was somewhat lost, since so much time was 'left out' from before his first scarring incident. As an example of what I'm trying to say here, I'll just put forward this book reference, which seems more than a little relevant.

In the books, Frodo, and all the Hobbits, were still relatively innocent, ready beings for a portion of their journey. Suddenly, their jollity, or just Frodo's dissapeared after he was forced to face the Barrow-Wight threatening his friends. Then, with Tom Bombadil, he remained jocund, but Tom makes everyone jocund, so that's no excuse. His innocence was diminished, but Sam's, Pippin's, and Merry's was not, since they had not had to 'deal' per se, with the Wights. In the movie, this whole transition was lost in the shuffle. As a character, Frodo's book personality shrinks, but is still 'growing downwards' not retreating into himself. He becomes a new person. In the films, he simply shrunk, remaining the same person, but more of a shell than a Halfling. Not one of the aspects I liked. The character of Frodo, both in terms of lines, writing, acting, and personaality, was not the character I loved in the book like, say, Gandalf or Merry (I could rant about Meriadoc's character developement overwhelming Frodo's, but I won't).

elfwishes999, I think Elijiah Wood can be credited with many things, but line memorization is not one, unless you're being sarcastic, considering the fact that he had more than enough takes during filming to make countless mistakes. Also, on the subject of the 'VERY WELL JOB' (forgive me, I'm a bit of a Grammar Nazi) I rather disliked Wood for the part of Frodo, one of my least favorites in the movie. I still don't entirely understand why Frodo was morphed from a 50-year old to a 17-year old. Yesm definate dislike.

Post Script: BTW, as per to Fordim's comment: The 2.3 centimeters grown by Frodo was not a measure of height, width, hair length, or otherwise. It was obviously a measurement of the radius of his pupils. Did anyone else notice that in the third film, his eye size had reached near bibical porportions?

Post Post Script: elfwishes, technical apologies about my bashing of your opinion, though it is, of course, all in good fun. An interesting debate topic you've manufactured here.

Post Post Post Script: Yes, I realize that I am a total and complete cynic, but I have my reasons. I am forced, though, to revert back and agree with our resident Saucepan Man. If any scene in the trilogy actually felt like Frodo to me it was the final speech, as a credit to both Elijiah Wood and Sean Astin, on Sammath Nuar, that Saucepan mentioned (that is the one I'm thinking of, yes?"

[ninlaith]

While watching the movies I did not notice any sort of personality change in Frodo. Except for the fact that he was burdened by the ring and not as positive and chipper as usual, he seemed to be the same. But the physical change was amazing. Three times I saw three different Frodos in the movies. For example when Frodo saw Gandalf at the start, his waking in Rivendell, and on the slopes of Mt. Doom.
Frodo was such a happy hobbit at the start of the movies. Not tainted by anything, never dangered in his life. He had, however, been troubled by the death of his parents but that's a different story. But all in all just happy. Then, after his first real encounter with danger, he woke up in Rivendell and I saw a little difference. They made him look tired, which he was, but more of a troubled atmosphere was to him. Then through TTT I did not see the happy hobbit at all. He was gone, almost transformed into an everyday stressed out human being. Then on the slopes of Mt. Doom after the destruction of the ring I saw good old Mr. Frodo again. It was such a breath of fresh air. My old friend Mr. Frodo had come back to us. So I think there was a certain change to Frodo but not an extreme change.

[Lathriel]

One thing you have to realize is that it is easier in a book to show a character's growth because you can read their thoughts but with a movie you can't really do that.

So maybe you think Frodo grew too weak but I mean he just happens to have the most powerful object of ME around his neck! How would you feel to have such a powerful thing. If Frodo hadn't seemed so weak the audience might not have felt so powerfully about the evil of the ring. The audience might not have understood clearly enough that the ring has to be detroyed.

Besides as was mentioned earlier a movie can't be 100% like the book in everything.

I think that Frodo showed growth especially when he came home. I mean before he couldn't show much growth other than the growing hold that the ring had on him.

[ninlaith]

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.

[Encaitare]

I think that Frodo definitely changed but this was only under the influence of the Ring. But I also think, contrary to what a lot of people seem to be saying, that Elijah Wood, while a bit too young for the role, really did an excellent job. When he's inside Mount Doom holding out the Ring, the look in his eyes is so chilling.

[Lathriel]

I agree Encaitare. I think Elijah was only about 18 or 19 when they began filming LOTR.

Might I add Elijah is one of the few Kiddie stars that didn't dissapear after he was grown-up like most do.

[ninlaith]

Yeah he was only 17 when he began his role as Frodo. And it is amazing how he has lasted so long. He had a very good career when he was just a kid and then he just disappeared for awhile. Then he took on some very unmeaningful roles which didn't suit him at all. I think his performance as Frodo could really boost his career. He brought so much to the character and was able to show the audience Frodo's emotional growth and many of Frodo's other characteristics throughout his journey.

[elfwishes999]

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.

THANK YOU!!!! for once, someone sees the movie the way i did

[Morsul the Dark]

Perhaps one could say Frodo grew but I think it was merely he was ecoming like gollum sly inhumane untrusting

Sam trully grew he became strong enough for them both especially when this line comes up "I can't carry it for you but I can carry you!!"http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/otn/blob_box.gif

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think the story of Frodo in the movies, as well as the story as a whole (who am I kidding? The world itself would be much, much better) if it were not for the ridiculous lembas saga in RotK.

How could you possibly say that Frodo grew when he got fooled by a scheme that a normal six year-old could see through?

[ninlaith]

That part made me so angry. The entire part was all of the directors poetic licence. I understand directors want to make a film their own but not change it completly. There could have been so much more focus on Frodo and Sam's friendship if they hadn't added that stuff. That part in real life would have been a matter of if Frodo trusted Sam, not the fact that Gollum did not eat lembas. There is no way that part could have been considered growth for Frodo as Eomer said. If Tolkien could be mad at any part in any of those movies I think it would be that part of ROTK.

[Encaitare]

Yeah, that part was more than a bit irritating. It did an excellent job of showing how much the Ring was taking hold of Frodo, that he would turn on Sam, but firstly, it was somewhat unnecessary, and secondly, Sam never would have turned back. I don't know why finding the lembas on the cliff below would suddenly make him turn around, but oh well. PJ did an amazing job with the movies and I guess a couple of major departures from canon can be excused. A slightly imperfect movie is better than no movie at all, right?

[Morsul the Dark]

Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question)

[Encaitare]

Heh heh, indeed you are right, Morsul. Why can't people just watch a forking movie? What's with all the questions? ::rips hair out::

[Essex]

ok, we're going off topic, but here's my two peneth worth re frodo/sam.

It all boils down to the effect PJ wanted when Frodo has been captured by Shelob. In the book, the reason why Sam doesn't get to frodo in time is because he was busy dealing with gollum.

Now, cinematically wise, how do we show a fast moving action sequence with sam and gollum, and a slow moving, stealthy capture of frodo by shelob at the same time? I don't think you can.

So, to get around this, PJ had frodo fight gollum (instead of sam fighting him), then realising his mistake re sam too late, and THEN being hunted down, slowly (and to me this is the most scariest bit in the movie) and then bitten before being bound in her web.

But to have this, we can't have Sam in the equation. Therefore, jackson gets Frodo to send Sam away. Now please note here, Sam is only going down a few steps whilst he is in shock and sadness at being sent away. He falls most of the way. He then sees the lembas, which to me does not change his mind, just makes him more angry.

And to add to this, we have a great shot where Sam turns up, with Frodo's sword which he left in the webs, to save the day (kind of!)......

I'd lay a pound to a penny this will be like the reason pj gives us in the commentary for changing these scenes. we'll find out in decemeber......

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

True, but those changes make gains while, at the same, they cause more problems.

[Essex]

oh yes, they cause a lot of problems, but that doesn't seem to put jackson off throughout these films, does it! I'm just trying to look at it from a filmaker's perspective.

ps I think it is Phillipa Boyens who is the main driving force behind the scripts. In the interviews, especially on the tt ee, she is the one who comes across most strongly when talking about the changes to the books.

PS , I finally heard the commentary from jackson around why they had frodo showing the nazgul the ring. They said they took it from another scene later on in the book (you know, where frodo is tempted to get out the ring when he sees / hears the witch king outside minas morgul). This actually makes me feel a bit better, as I hadn't twigged it, and it now works better for me. Jackson also subtly seems to jokingly/sarcastically make a note that putting in this scene here didn't create any problems for the viewing public!!!!

[Lathriel]

What I like about the EE is that it is explained in the documentaries why they changed parts of the book in the movie.
It helps me see the problems PJ had to deal with plus through the documentaries I began to gain respect for what they did. Even if the movies aren't true to the book word for word the director and writers at least have an explanation for it.