Frodo's change from book to film

[Lotrelf]

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.

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

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.

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.

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.

[FerniesApple]

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

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

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

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.

[FerniesApple]

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

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

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

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!

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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!

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.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

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.

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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.

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.

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

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

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

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.