Frodo's change from book to film
 

I suppose it was never so apparent to me that Frodo was significantly changed from book to film in some scenes/parts of the films. I guess it never really occured to me because Frodo was never a favorite character of mine, and maybe I just didn't see them. But as I re-read the books, I notice big contrasts from book Frodo to movie Frodo.

Besides the age (could Wood pass off as 50+? :) ), and besides the horrible scene of "Go home Sam, we are in the middle of nowhere, you'll probably die on the way, but go home Sam", there are a bunch of differences. One that comes to mind without digging too deep would be Frodo's mistrust and lies of and to Faramir. One of the best sites on contrasting the book the the movie has to be this one, made by an unnamed Tolkien enthuisiast-

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/index.html - "From pointy ears to Grima's tears"

If you haven't seen this, check it out. In the article "What happened to the galliant Captain Faramir", which has been promoted on this board before, the writer goes on to say how it was Frodo's fault of change that caused Faramir to be misinterperted. Check it out, it's interesting and in my opinion true.

Anyway, I stray. I don't have much time right now so I'll leave it up to the rest, what did you find shocking in Frodo's change from book to film?

I found that the hobbits (including Frodo) were not as fat as they seemed to be depicted to be in the books. I think that was for the better, though. I would probably not take a bunch of fat little halflings seriously anyway.

I'm definitely glad they weren't on the hefty side, I never pictured them like that. I pictured them like Jackson cast them. I'm curious, what gave you the idea that they were more plump? Sam perhaps I can see, but Merry and Pippin at least I believe are described as more slender.

Also notice on the journey to the Cross-roads, Frodo is the one who says to Sam the broken statue head of the King had a crown again as the sun shone on it. Why PJ gave this line to Sam in the films I can guess- because in PJ's film, by this point, Frodo was way more influenced by the Ring, possibly because of the changes to his character, and Frodo wouldn't really care enough to stop and say something hopeful like that.

Just found that interesting to note.

Yes, in general the film seems to portray Frodo as already hopelessly addicted and befuddled by the Ring. To the point where Sam is the only one with a clear head and the only one driving the Quest forward.

In the book, while Frodo experiences occasional fits of madness as a result of the Ring, he remains the driving force for the Quest, so he is the real hero of the story. He is the one who talks forcefully and skillfully to Faramir when they meet, he is the one who keeps Gollum alive, and he is the one who initially drives Shelob away with the Light of Earendil. In the movie, in contrast, Frodo seems to be a basket case very early on, so one loses all sense that this is a heroic Quest on the part of Frodo. This is handled skillfully in the book, since part of the dramatic tension comes from Frodo's awareness that he will be gradually transformed into Gollum, whereas in the movie, this happens early on. Frodo snaps out of it in the movie only enough to occasionally think of the Shire or happier times, but he does not show the nobility and wisdom that he has (especially in the dealings with Faramir) that he shows in the book.

I thought that the way Frodo was changed from the books to the film were a good change. Not that I was 100% satisified with the changes that were made to him and his lines but at least I wasn't disappointed.

I agree wholly with CSteefel, PJ did a disservice to Frodo in the movies. Frodo is a very brave character throughout the books, but PJ turned him into a snivelling, whining basket case who has to be dragged by Gollum and pushed by Sam to Mordor.

Examples:

As I often say, PJ took away Frodo's finest moment at the Ford of Bruinen. In the book, he faces the wraiths across the river, draws his sword and says "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall neither me nor the Ring." PJ has him in a stupor, wheezing in Arwen's lap. Cute, but not impressive. :confused: :confused:

On Weathertop, in the book, Frodo charges the Ringwraiths and manages to stab one (the Witch-King himself unless I am mistaken). PJ, again, takes away his fire and has Frodo whimper, drop his sword, run away and trip over his cloak. Pitiful, just pitiful. :rolleyes:

And Book Frodo would never had chosen Gollum over Sam or told Sam to go away. To me that was the greatest travesty of any changes to the story.

Frodo starts out as a very brave and admirable person in the movies. Somebody that you do see strength in. From The Shire scene, he learns all about the Ring, then tells Gandalf 'What must I do?' A very good moment for Frodo as he shows he is stepping away from his comfortable home in The Shire and will bear the Ring (at least for the time being).

Then at the Council of Elrond when amongst the arguing he steps up again and says 'I will take it.' Both instances show Frodo's strength of sacrificing his own comfortable life, and putting the fate of Middle-earth literally on his shoulders. He did something no one else seemed to have the guts to want to do, and that was to take the Ring to Mount Doom. (As a side note, I do sorely miss Bilbo's presence at the Council and miss his heartfelt proposal of taking the Ring)

However, since those two moments there's not much to praise Frodo about. He doesn't show really any of these qualities again through the rest of the movie. They just see him as a pathetic weakling that if it wasn't for Sam then the quest would have failed. Now there's no doubt that Sam was a key factor in keeping Frodo going, but if it wasn't for Frodo Sam would have failed! Aye, that's the truth. They both kept eachohter going, and you don't see that in the movies.

It gets to such absurdity where people posted threads about Sam should just kill Frodo because he's useless and everyone would be much better off. Sam deserves more praise than what he got, Frodo deserves none of it because he's a whiny baby. And all this is what you feel when you watch Frodo in the movies. He starts out as a strong, brave, determined character, but that all fades away and is forgotten at the latest by The Two Towers.

Maybe that's PJ's way of trying to bring the role of the Ring forward, how it consumes Frodo and makes him weak? I have many objections to PJ's handling of things in the movie, but making Frodo a bit more vulnerable to the temptation and corruption of the Ring is not one of them. :)

As much as I would like to hear you say 'Boro you are perfectly right and you know best,' I just can't make you do that. :D As this is completely opinionated, it's a matter of personal like and dislike (couldn't you just say though that I am absolutely right? :p )

Anyway, I see your point, however I think a skilled director could show the agony and power the Ring had over Frodo without making him a total weak whiner that falls down anytime something scares him. Tolkien displays the torment Frodo went through, yet makes him an admirable and strong-willed character. Any director worth half his salt could have effectively done the same thing. There's nothing wrong with Jackson attempting to do what he did, but when people get the wrong idea and just see Frodo as a pathetic useless weakling that needs to die (which is the impression people have gotten), Jackson missed his mark in my eyes.

You forgot to mention one of Frodo's bravest highlights- his decision to leave The Fellowship and venture out on his own to continue his path from Amon Hen. No doubt that his weakness was shown way too early, though.

I would be more impressed by this argument if Frodo had been depicted as strong, for the Ring's power over a strong Frodo would be more convincing than over a weak Frodo.

Frodo's Elvishness is another aspect from the Books that is pretty much gone in the movies. His Elvishness is in my mind his strength of spirit; but PJ reduces the spiritual battle to a psychological one. A shame.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. I had forgotten about these examples. Especially the last, this is completely out of character to the Frodo in the book.

I remember back in the late 60s, the bumper stickers or T-shirts that said "Frodo Lives"--a clear recognition of the noble sacrifice made by Frodo. If somebody only saw the PJ films, this would never occur to them...

I agree with others here. There's a very thin line between weak and vulnerable, and movies seemed to be crossing the line. Frodo Was vulnerable but he was NOT weak. People speak of the "unknown" Frodo that doesn't belong to the Books and bash him.

I was watching "Hobitit" recently on YouTube (a Finnish dramatisation of the hobbitocentric parts of LOTR, adapted from a stage play and televised in Finland in 1993) and wondering whether Peter Jackson might have seen and been influenced by it. Although the Frodo in this is much maturer than PJ's, he does seem more passive than in the book. Not just at Weathertop, but also in the Barrow.

'Basket case', that's a good way to describe Frodo in th film, CSteefel. I had often felt he was reduced to being a mere mule, someone who physically transports the Ring, but with almost all the spiritual, intellectual and moral struggle removed. I agree as has been mentioned above, one of the biggest losses to his character was the cutting out of his dialogue with Faramir. That was powerful in the book.

I thought Elijah Wood was inspired casting, his expressive little face was a perfect balance between the jovial younger Hobbits and serious Sam. Frodo was vulnerable which made the horror of his situation all the more heartbreaking. if they had made him more aggressive or 'manly' it would have been a bit less interesting, the fact that a male hero can be gentle and vulnerable and NOT be a woman is very unusual and I like it. Indeed I find (generally from reading a lot on Tolkien forums) that male fans dislike Frodo/Elijah more than female fans, women tend to find a more gentle Frodo appealing whereas the men think he is a wuss compared to the book. I think film Frodo is more nuanced, I like that he doesnt fight as much as in the book, he is still as determined to go on, but it makes Sam stand out as the solid strength that keeps them both going, in the book they are more evenly matched, in the films Frodo is more fey and almost Elven looking. I like him.

Well, Book-Frodo is vulnerable and gentle aswell on many, many occasions. But he is also able to stand up for himself in really tough situations. This (very hobbit-like) kind of courage is what Gandalf sees in Frodo, when he deems him to be the most qualified Hobbit of the shire. The first movie took away a large chunk of this and replaced it with him being completly defensless: We don´t see him defying the will of the ring and rescuing his friends in the barrow downs; Instead of fighting back on the weathertop he falls to the ground (which he does alot in the trilogy) and so on. Like you I can see the appeal of this approach. I can understand why they decided to handle Frodo´s character in this manner but they overdid it for me.

I don´t know why this has to be a gender issue. I guess some people do want to feel something else than just compassion or pity (for this poor little fella). Especially when said character is supposed to be the protagonist of a movie.

I don´t see how stripping his character of certain traits, whilst highlighting other traits results in a more nuanced characterisation. Again you seem to imply that Frodo is this aggressive, actionhero kinda guy in the books which is not the case. Frodo has alot of reserved, introvert and vulnerable moments in the novel but they are more in balance with his courage and determination.

firstly how do you know its the reason of being able to stand up for himself that Gandalf chooses him? Its more like the Tookish qualities of adventure seeking that Bilbo also had hidden under his comfort loving exterior, or the fact he was related to Bilbo, Gandalf probably didnt know Frodo all that well having made brief appearances in Hobbiton before the Party. I think Gandalf felt that ALL Hobbits could be courageous in times of need, and Frodo seemed the fey almost Elven seeming relative of Bilbo.

Secondly we dont see the Barrow Downs at all so we dont know what would have happened in the film. I think they chose not to show him fighting on Weathertop so that Aragorn would look more like a protecting influence, all the Hobbits are portrayed as being frightened by the Ringwraiths, not just Frodo. Its a bit like showing Bilbo fighting off orcs and spiders way too soon in The Hobbit films, if they try to make Frodo too assertive too soon it takes away from his story arc in my opinion. Anyway Frodos strength is never in use of arms but interior courage, and you dont need to wave a sword around to show courage.

It doesnt have to be a gender issue, its just my observations of the gender issue. Men and women like different things, its not a problem.

No I dont think book Frodo is an aggressive guy, you are reading too much into my words. But book Frodo is more assertive in certain situations, Weathertop is one, but I really cant think of many examples where book Frodo is using more traditionally heroic methods like waving his sword about and stabbing things than in the film. I dont agree that they stripped away many of his traits of courage in the films. It depends on your definition of courage, sometimes courage is interior and thats what I liked about Woods performance.

FerniesApple, the groups "men" and "women" are made up of millions and millions of individuals, with their own personalities, opinions, tastes and interests, so I'd say it's best to avoid making sweeping statements about "what women like" based on what I'd guess is a pretty small sample.

I mean, yes,*some* women (especially teenage girls, which is what I suspect your sample mostly is) have a sort of "thing" for males who seem fragile or "broken"; I suppose it's an equivalent of the damsel-in-distress archetype. But again, that's some women, not "women".

For my part, no, I didn't care for the way the films handled Frodo at all, and to me it suggests that the writers were in fact working from the basic assumption that any man *not* a traditional action hero type must be a total sissy. I don't think they added nuance, I think they removed it.

(As for Bilbo, the new films are all over the map on *his* characterisation.)

I don't know/think/understand too much of this gender issue I have seen both men and women appreciating and disliking Frodo, both in the books and the movies. Movies did take away a lot of "real" Frodo. Whenever I watch the films after reading the books, I get a complete different image of all the characters. The character I see in the films are totally different people. Still there are Gandalf and Sam who are still very close to the characters in the book. Movies showed Frodo very much weak and defenseless, as has been said here, and that's true. I also feel an emptiness in his character. Wood hadn't read the books, so he never came to know the real Frodo. That went against book Frodo terribly.
Hmmm... But I feel Professor Tolkien showed Frodo's different side was there. When all the hobbits in the book were frightened, it was Frodo who striked the Wraith. In the Barrow-Downs, it was him who saved his friends with TB's help. None of this would have seemed far fetched in the movies had they shown it. They chose otherwise. Aragorn was there to protect them in the book too, and Frodo's defense nowhere takes away anything from Aragorn.

I dont think Wood not having read the books had anything to do with it

thats rather a sweeping statement about teenage girls

It had a lot to do with it. Not having read the book didn't give him the idea of real Frodo, and the script he was given wasn't about Frodo at all. Had he read them, he could make up for many things on his own.

I dont agree, thats silly, of course the script was about Frodo

What, you don't like the bit where I make a concession to your point of view? Okay, I'll take it back then.

You think so? 'cause I don't. Tolkien's Frodo is completely a different character than Jackson's Frodo. Movies stripped most of the qualities he showed in the books. His wisdom, selflessness, will to sacrifice himself etc.were missing from the movies. Gollum's redemption, Saruman's death were not added at all. I'm rambling badly, I'll explain better later. Cheers!

No I didnt like it. It was rather patronizing. So yeah take it back.

The issue might be that Jackson lacks the ability to be subtle. Frodo's character can't be just a little less heroic than Aragorn's - or heroic in a non-sword swaggering kind of way - but is then portrayed as whiny and ineffectual.

Anyway, I don't think that Gandalf's character was portrayed any better - his confusion before entering the Mines, his begging of Saruman and Aragorn, his fearful look when dehorsed by the Witch-King...If only that were the low water mark, but then we got the Hobbit. :rolleyes:

Sam's portrayal closer than that of the other two, except when he abandons Frodo (temporarily) on Cirith Ungol.

Nope. I think people (in general) are mistaking Elijah Woods facial expressions as evidence that he is somehow lesser in character. He showed selflessness and courage throughout the films, maybe it was hard to recognize because he has quite an innocent baby face which lends itself to looking hurt and bewildered. Just imaging that it wasnt Wood but another actor with exactly the same dialogue, imagine its James McAvoy someone a bit more masculine looking maybe, I dont think it was a problem of the things he said but more his acting style that puts people off. Anyway thats my opinion take it or leave it. :p

I am not one of those who after watching the films said Frodo was whiner or wimp. But I could not consider him the hero of the movies either. It was the books that gave me the confirmation of it. I don't doubt Elijah Wood did an admirable job in portraying the character of Frodo, and ROTK is his best. I don't judge a character or a person by their looks, it's About how they are from inside. Frodo, in the movie, is quite frail. Gollum's redemption, the part that is one of the most important parts of the book was not added there. The whole Gollum redemption scene proved Frodo's decision wasn't wrong, his wisdom and his ability to cope with the evil was proved by that part. Saruman's death is there in the extended DVD but completely different scene that does not have anything to do with Frodo. In the book that scene explains who Frodo has become. He asks Sam to go home. There are many explanations from both fans of the movies and movie makers themselves but honestly, they don't justify the decision they took for Frodo. That is the reason most movie fans hate him.

I agree. But Jackson lacks to be subtle? He has been subtle in other things. never mind. Frodo is certainly portrayed in an ineffetual way. He seems to be in action only in the first movie and rest he has to depend upon Sam. He does so in the book too, but there you know the struggle he's going through.
Gandalf is far better than Frodo. In the movies you know, like books, without his comeback, things would have been in vain. Sam's portrayal is good. I loved him both in the movies and the books. Book Sam is more humble and noble, his behaviour with Gollum in the books is much better than in the movies. It's only Frodo who's screwed up. Faramir is redeemed in the extended TTT.

I seriously question whether most movie fans hate him. Maybe most people on this forum hate him, but mostly I think people agree Wood did a sterling job. As do I.
He perfectly embodied the slightly effete officer, Sam as faithful capable batman that Tolkien probably based their relationship on. Frodo depends entirely on Sams sturdy good Hobbit sense, in a film of 3 or so hours they dont have the luxury of many book layers. It has to be a somewhat simplified portrayal and they decided to have Frodo be vulnerable and full of inner pain and torment. It worked out brilliantly.

FerniesApple, I agree that Lotrelf is exaggerating by saying most movie fans hate Frodo. However, your belief that everyone else here is judging by Wood's acting and appearance rather than by the character's actions or dialogue also seems to me quite unfounded. The complaints voiced on this thread have mostly been too specific to bear that interpretation.

Besides, if you were right, it would show he was miscast, wouldn't it?

Last year, after finishing the books, I liked lots of Facebook pages and was suprised to see the hatred/dislike he recieved from the fans. There wasn't a single post that was had the comments like "Frodo is a wimp" or "Frodo whines a lot". I realized it was because of the movies that most fans thought so. I couldn't believe someone could hate any LOTR character. It was suprising to me. Since then, it's only Frodo who's hated with passion and being a "Frodo-fan" is considered a sort of insult. Maybe it's kinda exaggeration but I don't think it's appropriate to hate any character from the movies or books. It's just stupid. As for Elijah, I agree his was an exceptional performance, but it's the script that ruined MANY THINGS.

I don't wish to be facetiously reductive as such, but I think the kind of people who blurt out derogatory remarks (even about fictional characters) in comments on Facebook are probably not the kind of people who can appreciate the nuances of a character like Frodo.

At the risk of making a further generalisation, in my opinion a lot of online "fan communities" on social media are rife with ill-thought-out and simplistic views on texts. I think there are different kinds of "fans" who appreciate things on different levels and for different reasons. This is why I stick to the Downs.

Not being a FaceBooker, I'm not privy to specific comments on social media, and my sole online interaction with those who have seen the movies is accomplished here.

My personal experience though with friends and relations who have viewed the films has revealed that even those who have read the books don't esteem them the way I do. They have difficulty separating the two media, and view the books through the same lens as the movies. I like to think of the films as a loose adaptation, with the 'real' story being in the books.

No. it wouldnt.
I am trying to understand why the people on this forum seem to dislike Woods performance and am putting forward hypothetical reasons why. The 'characters actions or dialogue' and his acting are one and the same thing. I am saying perhaps Wood has been misjudged by not 'looking' like people imagined Frodo from the books, and perhaps he has 'acted' in a manner unlike imagined from the books, but that is down to personal taste more than any serious flaws or deviations from the original. The message is the same even if the messenger is speaking in an unfamiliar accent. I dont think they did Frodo a disservice by making him gentler, I think it made him more interesting, but thats my personal opinion.

I wouldn't blame Elijah Wood for the failures of Frodo or the movies - that would be like blaming Hayden Christensen for the dreck that are the Star Wars prequels. Wood could only do what he was asked and what was in the script.

In other posts I renamed the movie Frodo as "Frodo Baggage," as the character always seems to be being carried by others. In the books he seems to be much more self-reliant.

What scenes from the movies or from the books do you feel show Frodo in a better light?

- Of course I like when he takes a swipe at the Witch-King on Weathertop.

- "Go back to the land of Mordor and follow me no more!" at the Fords of Bruinen.

- The scene where Frodo is shown to be both soft and stern (in Sam's eyes) when dealing with Gollum and the Ring.

- His shrewd interactions with Faramir.

In the movie I do like when he and Sam are awaiting death on Mount Doom, before the Eagles appear. The look on his face when the entire Minas Tirith crowd turns to him (and his three companions) is excellent.

Browsed FotR the other week and some of the major differences between Book-Frodo (BF) and Movie-Frodo (MF) I noticed were:

Age-difference: It's obvious that MF is much younger than BF and not only in appearance. While BF is a mature, intelligent and self-assured Hobbit who is able to handle himself well in just about any social situation (and he does pretty well in a crisis too), MF is more of a whelp and out of his depth most of the time.

Character: What I find curious though, in the light of what I just wrote, is that MF (as I remember him) seems more serious than BF. At least in the beginning of the book we get to know BF as a pretty funny guy. He exchanges jokes with M&P and has a tendency to have a few drinks too many. BF was just an angsty guy, wasn't he?

Class distinction: BF and his chums Merry and Pippin are very bourgeois. Although BF treats Sam with the greatest of respect, he is still, at least initially, his gardener and servant rather than his friend.