how do you like the portrayal of frodo?

[Finduilas]

Because if Denethor, the mad steward, had more courage that Frodo, one of the main heros, there would be major problems.

And Theoden may have been cowardized for Aragorns sake, who seemed afraid of becoming king. They may not have been as directly related to Frodo as Faramir, but it seemed to me as if almost everyone was more of a coward. There are of course exceptions, like Eomer and Eowyn.

[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.

As to which Frodo I like better, of course it's the book, as in pretty much every other area. But I like film Frodo, too. You have to accept that he is different, that he is more complex, that he deteriorates more quickly. Elijah Wood had the monumental task of portraying this Frodo, a very different one from the books, a character who could easily come across as unlikeable if not played with skill, but nonetheless the anchoring role of the cast. If I have any complaints with the film Frodo, it's with the way he was written, not with Wood's magnificent portrayal (though I do wish his voice wasn't so high-pitched).

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

But I like film Frodo, too. You have to accept that he is different, that he is more complex, that he deteriorates more quickly. Elijah Wood had the monumental task of portraying this Frodo, a very different one from the books, a character who could easily come across as unlikeable if not played with skill, but nonetheless the anchoring role of the cast. If I have any complaints with the film Frodo, it's with the way he was written, not with Wood's magnificent portrayal (though I do wish his voice wasn't so high-pitched).

More complex? Reading the LotR for the sixth time at present, I am finding Frodo a fantastic, complex, and amazing character. The Frodo protrayed in the movie is shallow and weak.

I'd agree with you in as much as I like Elijah Wood as Frodo, I just don't like how he was written. I think Wood could have done well if they had written it differently. You can see promise in the way he executes certain lines like the "What must I do?" and "I will take it! I will take the Ring to Mordor...though...I do not know the way." They just didn't give him a chance of playing the real Frodo.

-- Folwren

[Child of the 7th Age]

You might enjoy reading over this earlier discussion that touched on some of these same points: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ighlight=Frodo

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I must differ with the majority so far who liked Elijah Wood in the role. Now don't get me wrong- I like Elijah Wood as an actor. But he's all wrong for Frodo. To begin with, he's much, much too young and innocent and wide-eyed. Frodo is older and wiser than the other hobbits, more of an intellectual, and more measured (which is not the same as unsure or indecisive). Jackson's lessening of Frodo's character as a whole is in many ways a juvenilisation.

(Note on age: Christopher Tolkien, following his father I'm sure, considers hobbits to age as the same rate as Men: the 'coming of age' at 33 just reflects the wisdom of Shire society in considering young people in their 20s to be irresponsible and not ready for adulthood. "Fifty is fifty." At any rate, Frodo is the same age that Bilbo was during his adventure; and Bilbo was emphatically a middle-aged bachelor, set in his ways, not a doll-faced youth.)

[Folwren]

'Cept, Frodo got the ring when he was thirty-three and not fifty.

Yes, Elijah Wood was too young for the role.

[Finduilas]

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.

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

[smeagollives]

Originally Posted by Folwren

'Cept, Frodo got the ring when he was thirty-three and not fifty.

Yes, Elijah Wood was too young for the role.

i understand this. most people who go to the movies are aroung elijahs age. probably they thought it would be easier for the audience to indentify with him if he was younger.

[smeagollives]

Originally Posted by Folwren

More complex? Reading the LotR for the sixth time at present, I am finding Frodo a fantastic, complex, and amazing character. The Frodo protrayed in the movie is shallow and weak.
-- Folwren

i have to agree with that. book-frodo is definetly a complex chracter. much more complex as movie frodo.

what do we know about movie frodo?

he loves the shire, he wants to save it, he is tempted be the ring and he shows some compassion for gollum. we do not know much more about him. *repeating myself*: he is they guy next door-type. the poor lad to whom happened horrible things and who was broken by this.

i think book-frodo has much more character. i always imagined him to be like one of my college professors. may be a little bit like tolkien.

to my mind book-frodo is much more intellectual than film frodo. he is a quiet and friendly person. he talks about his emotions less and rarely shows he is feeling. he is scared of being a burden.

[Sauron the White]

book-frodo is definetly a complex chracter. much more complex as movie frodo

Given that every 100 pages of book was turned into about 50 minutes of film, is that anything less than a glaringly obvious reality? I have yet to see a film where the characters are MORE complex when compared to a well written, comparatvely much longer book.

This is comparing apples to cinder-blocks.

[Sauron the White]

WCH -- why do you persist in battling strawmen of your own making - not once but over and over again?

My point was certainly NOT the McDonalds argument as you call it. The fact is this - and this is NOT news. Normally, films which are embraced by the masses - as evidenced by their dollars and ticket purchases - are not well reviewed by the professional critics. And those same fan favorites usually are not the big winners for industry proffessional awards such as the BAFTA's and Academy Awards. Those three categories of measurement of a films success usually are mutuall exclusive - at least for one factor out of the three.

McDonalds may indeed have a large number of customers but they DO NOT win industry awards for the quality of their food, ambience or service. And I have never read a review of a professional food critic in which McDonalds is ranked with the likes of The French Laundry or other five star restaurants. Your attempt at being clever with the phrase using McDonalds is not even an apt one.

The three LOTR films were wildly successful by all three measurements of a film success. This is a very rare occurence. That should tell you that the vast opinion of both the average person, professional critics, and industry professionals all felt the films worked and were very good films.

Of course, the inside intelligensia who feel they are the true holders of the JRRT flame conveniently ignore this and prefer to compare apples to cinder blocks and surprise nobody when they declare that yes indeed folks, apples taste better and cinder blocks are much harder.

Like Claude Rains in CASABLANCA, I am shocked.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Excellent rebuttal, StW. It is indeed true that a bad film can generate huge revenue or rave reviews, but both at once?

I think it's sad in a way that we Downers don't get to watch the films afresh, from the perspective of those who have never read the books. Not that it was made exclusively for those people; it was made for us, too, but the effect is far different.

As a result of our love for the books, our feelings toward the films are necessarily colored. They're my three favorite films of all time, probably because of my love for the books. They're the three most-despised films of all time for other fans, probably because of their love for the books.

The tough part for me is to not just start screaming at the dislikers, "You're idiots; how in the world could you not like this?" Because they probably feel tempted to scream similar things to me. Both views are equally valid. I would love to start a thread about this, where those from opposite sides could seek to understand one another rather than scream, and perhaps I will.

Also, I will retract a bit about Frodo's film complexity vs. book complexity. What I meant was that he is weaker and struggles more than in the book. He is superficially more complex, because it takes a careful reading of the book to note the subtleties and nuances of Tolkien's portrayal. But I should not have said more complex, should have known better than to allow Jackson an upper hand in any area over Tolkien. Thank you to those who caught that.

Finally, I have not heard those words from Christopher Tolkien, but I disagree with them. I think there is a slight difference in human and hobbit aging; indeed, one would think that there must be if hobbits regularly live into their 100's. Thus, at the age of 33, Frodo might look 21. And at the age of 50, well, he would still look 21 or at least in that range thanks to the Ring. So Wood isn't that far off age-wise, in my opinion.
Of course, in spite of my views there, I still think he looks a bit too young. And he indeed does not display the maturity and leadership over the other hobbits that book-Frodo does.
But again, I think Wood's fantastic in spite of that. Brilliant acting, and I think his looks have a tinge of that elvishness that Sam noticed.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

Because if Denethor, the mad steward, had more courage that Frodo, one of the main heros, there would be major problems.

I really just do not understand what you mean here.