I agree with Folwren that Frodo would have looked 33, but he was definitely to young, as he looked 20 at most. He wasn't near as wise, genteel, and elvish(remember, in the books, elves were always happily surprised when he greeted them in their own tongue.) as he should have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir
I don't think the weakening of Frodo had anything to do with the weakening of other characters; it was more of an across-the-board decision made by the filmmakers to go for more complexity and thus elicit more empathy from the audience.
|
I don't think that weakening characters adds complexity. It made me partly dislike characters like Denethor(I can't say I liked him, but I didn't dislike him nearly as much in the book as in the movie.) and Theoden(who I really liked in the book, but in the movie, he was so degraded that I can't say I either like or dislike him in the TT).
MathewM, I will attempt to explain, but I am not a very good writter, and often find it hard to express myself, so try to forgive me if I can't make much sense.
I think that it would be strange for the steward of Gondor, who sends out his son to do a dangerous, and mostly hopeless job, to have more courage than the hero, who, even though he is a small hobbit used to comfort, travels half across the world to save the world, when he could have not said anything at the counsil, and just stayed there, or returned home. If they had made Denethor more noble, things like Frodo's sending Sam home would have been more stricking. If they had given side characters more
character Frodos character would have seemed more dilapidated. Please note that I am mearly using examples, and other things also caused such things, and that example of Frodo sending Sam away, was only used as an example. Also these are only personal opinions, not backed up by proof.
(If I'm still not making myself clear, just PM me, as I have a horrible feeling I'm getting of topic, and I hate chat skwerls.)
Finduilas