[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

We see Frodo's internal desire for the ring in TT where he is laying on the ground and lovingly 'caressing' the ring with his fingers. One quick movie shot conveying his real desire (and love?) for the ring.

But we don't see his real desire & love for evil, what the Ring symbolises.

This shows Frodo's understanding that he couldn't give the Ring up. We see here that he is without hope, BUT HE STILL CARRIES ON. Not neccesarily because he has fallen into Sin by wanting the Ring, but because it has forced itself on him, and he is under its power, helpless and 'alone in the dark'.

But this is the whole question - the nature of evil - is it something 'external' which has overcome his will, or is it an internal response - does he give in & desire evil?

We also see Frodo's struggle afterwards in the movie with the BRILLIANT monolouge Frodo gives us in Bag End. It still brings a tear to my eye when this scene arrives. I feel so melancholy, as I do near the end of the books, and I thank Boyens, Walsh and Jackson for this scene, maybe above ALL others in the films.

But is movie Frodo saying the same thing as book Frodo? Different Frodo, different struggle, I'd say. Movie Frodo has been broken by an external force, but has no reason to blame himself or feel like the 'broken failure' Tolkien says he does by the end of the story. Book Frodo has (in my reading) willed evil by surrendering to the Ring.

Well, to truly engage with this issue we would have to try to understand the reasons behind the popularity of LotR the book. It is itself generally regarded as "escapist" in nature. A mischaracterisation (or misunderestimation) perhaps, but I do doubt that the majority who enjoy it do so because it gives them the opportunity to grapple with themes such as this.

It is a mischaracterisation - one which the movies have exacerbated, & just because the majority of readers don't grapple with these themes is no reason to pretend they don't exist & reduce the work to an action adventure.

I do not disagree with the ideal behind your statement. But, as a practical matter, I can't see studios being willing to back the idea. Middle-earth requires a big budget to bring to the screen (to make it visually accurate at least), and it would therefore have involved a hefty financial risk.

So why didn't they buy the movie rights to one of the thousand & one Tolkien rip off fantasies out there & film that? If you're going to adapt a work of literature do it properly.