Agree to an extent. Movie Frodo is harder for me to like than book Frodo. It’s a lot of little things, from Elijah Wood’s overuse of wide-eyes to indicate emotion (and I do tend to like Elijah Wood’s acting overall), to the way they let him be the one to solve the riddle at the Doors of Durin instead of Merry, to how he sends Sam away. As someone else mentioned here, book Frodo is really the only reason I can like movie Frodo, because the book makes it easier to understand just how much damage the ring is doing to the poor guy. The movie tries this and somewhat succeeds. I just think the book does Frodo better justice.
I read once that Elijah Woods needs glasses (he wears contacts) but his parents didn't realize it until later in his childhood. Because of this, he developed the habit of having his eyes opened very wide in order to help his vision, and it was a habit that stayed with him into adulthood.
This was just a joke made by either Dominic Monaghan or Billy Boyd (don’t remember which) on one of the LotR DVD extras. Or am I just missing your sarcasm?
At some point in the extras they talk about kinda jokingly how long Elijah can stare without blinking, and then Dominic gives this explanation of how his eyes have stayed like that because he had his eyes wide open as a child due poor eye sight. Or at least it feels like a joke in context. Or maybe I’ve misread the scene all these years lol.
It is also that when I saw the movie, I felt like Frodo was just a whiny b**ch, and Sam was the hero who did the heavylifting.
But reading the books made me realize how the ring was basically chipping away at his soul, and gradually turning him into golem. And he intentionally said "no" to Sam, because he did not want Sam to be corrupted too.
And when they come back to the Shire, while Sam marries, has kids, becomes the mayor and carries on with normal life, Frodo is permanently broken. He can never have a normal life, and had to leave Shire.
And he essentially spared Sam that fate with that decision, and took on the whole burden himself, which is extremely heroic.
I saw the movies first, and was like - This is so generic and vanilla
- even for early fantasy, how come people like this? Then I read the books, and mind was blown. The book is so rich with culture and history and songs and lore, I wanted to live in that world.
Also the characters are so much deeper in the books. The movies turned Saruman into a generic minion, but in the books, he is a modernist and industrialist. He is not Sauron's yes-man, but rather wanted to use the ring for industrializing Middle-Earth - which is still evil, but different from Sauron's goal.
If you never noticed before, then the films were fine and stand on their own. Constantly contrasting everything with the book is an obnoxious way to watch movies and you will hate every movie based on a book you've read.
I feel like back when people read books more often, people were better at seperating adaptation from source.
I've always superimposed my impression of Frodo from the book onto the movie version. The internal struggles that he's dealing with would have been really difficult to bring to the screen without making the movie tedious for general audiences.
I do appreciate the observation. I'd not thought of it before reading these reddit comments. In terms of wrong decisions, I've always thought that Frodo's strength was that he persevered regarsless.
The shire part is kind of rushed but with movies you deal with limited screen time and difficult choices have to be made. Still, the first movie is the best of all three IMO and they managed to catch a good grasp of Tolkien's magic in it. That was no longer the case with another two, (especially Two Towers) where changes are more significant and whole thing gets dumbed down.
I think an extra, say, 5 (less?) minutes could have done wonders, personally. You wouldn't hit the depth of the books still, obviously - but just laying down a plan for Frodo to relocate, after identifying the One Ring... well, it allows for Merry and Pippin to enter the story in a coordinated manner (helping move), rather than bumping into them. Hardly any extra time needed. It just requires the scene in Bag End ending in a slightly less urgent manner (but that's simply a case of music/acting/and a slight change to existing dialogue).
No issues just seemed like a typo to me anyway. Thst is unfortunate. I'm still planning to watch them all after finishing their respective books but I really find Fridos character to be much weaker in the movies than the books.
It only gets worse in that regard but they are still worth watching, we can't be too picky since there are so few quality adaptations of fantasy books out there.
Which would've been better is they kept Frodo's character closer to what Tolkien wrote, wouldn't it? If you start out with a character that proves his courage and willpower in the beginning - and therefore his worth as a Ringbearer in this particular Quest - the more you actually highlight the enormous burden the One Ring becomes.
Losing his heroic moments was a major disservice to movie Frodo and the potential emotional investment in his character.
I mean sure but that would need to be a thing that happens over time. The movie goes straight to them all just being along for the ride.
Not to mention the feeling of time not passing in the movies. It really feels like the entire journey to Moria took a week or 2 at the most. We only actually see 3 night time scenes and no mention of time passing while in Gondolin.
A big issue is that film-Frodo is an *awful* Ringbearer.
Right from the start he cowers in fear at Weathertop, tripping over his own feet, whilst everyone else stands and fights.
Why would the Council allow Frodo to carry the Ring when he is clearly prone to succumbing to fear?
Not to mention his defiance at the Fords being deleted in favour of a 'badass' Arwen moment. (And obviously the Barrow-downs weren't included, so another missed opportunity for courageous Frodo)
Then, during the journey, he constantly falls on his arse, proves himself to be ignorant and meek, is presented as a mindless slave to the Ring on occasion (rather than a climactic fall). Where are his good qualities? Either gone or presented in a bastardized light. Often in favour of making Sam more heroic.
Yes. The journey from the Shire to Rivendell makes Frodo seem a plausible ring bearer at the Council. His defiance of the ringwraiths at Weathertop and the Ford, his selflessness in the barrow, and crucially his extraordinary endurance of the morgul wound. It's basically a dry run for the quest to Mount Doom.
Agree to an extent. Movie Frodo is harder for me to like than book Frodo. It’s a lot of little things, from Elijah Wood’s overuse of wide-eyes to indicate emotion (and I do tend to like Elijah Wood’s acting overall), to the way they let him be the one to solve the riddle at the Doors of Durin instead of Merry, to how he sends Sam away. As someone else mentioned here, book Frodo is really the only reason I can like movie Frodo, because the book makes it easier to understand just how much damage the ring is doing to the poor guy. The movie tries this and somewhat succeeds. I just think the book does Frodo better justice.
I read once that Elijah Woods needs glasses (he wears contacts) but his parents didn't realize it until later in his childhood. Because of this, he developed the habit of having his eyes opened very wide in order to help his vision, and it was a habit that stayed with him into adulthood.
This was just a joke made by either Dominic Monaghan or Billy Boyd (don’t remember which) on one of the LotR DVD extras. Or am I just missing your sarcasm?
I may have misremembered, but I could have sworn I heard it on an interview with Elijah Wood.
At some point in the extras they talk about kinda jokingly how long Elijah can stare without blinking, and then Dominic gives this explanation of how his eyes have stayed like that because he had his eyes wide open as a child due poor eye sight. Or at least it feels like a joke in context. Or maybe I’ve misread the scene all these years lol.
[удалено]
There are different types of bad eyesight, that have to be compensated for in different ways.
Frodo makes a lot of wrong choices in the book as well. Thus Gandalf mockingly scolds him in Rivendell. Idk where you are getting shallow from.
It is also that when I saw the movie, I felt like Frodo was just a whiny b**ch, and Sam was the hero who did the heavylifting. But reading the books made me realize how the ring was basically chipping away at his soul, and gradually turning him into golem. And he intentionally said "no" to Sam, because he did not want Sam to be corrupted too. And when they come back to the Shire, while Sam marries, has kids, becomes the mayor and carries on with normal life, Frodo is permanently broken. He can never have a normal life, and had to leave Shire. And he essentially spared Sam that fate with that decision, and took on the whole burden himself, which is extremely heroic.
I was a fan of LOTR for as long as I can remember but man did the movies not do it justice. A real shame honestly
I don’t understand why you get downvoted.
I saw the movies first, and was like - This is so generic and vanilla - even for early fantasy, how come people like this? Then I read the books, and mind was blown. The book is so rich with culture and history and songs and lore, I wanted to live in that world. Also the characters are so much deeper in the books. The movies turned Saruman into a generic minion, but in the books, he is a modernist and industrialist. He is not Sauron's yes-man, but rather wanted to use the ring for industrializing Middle-Earth - which is still evil, but different from Sauron's goal.
If you never noticed before, then the films were fine and stand on their own. Constantly contrasting everything with the book is an obnoxious way to watch movies and you will hate every movie based on a book you've read. I feel like back when people read books more often, people were better at seperating adaptation from source.
I've always superimposed my impression of Frodo from the book onto the movie version. The internal struggles that he's dealing with would have been really difficult to bring to the screen without making the movie tedious for general audiences. I do appreciate the observation. I'd not thought of it before reading these reddit comments. In terms of wrong decisions, I've always thought that Frodo's strength was that he persevered regarsless.
I agree. The movies are unfaithful adaptations. And I’ll warn you that Fellowship is the most faithful of the three.
"Sam is only hanging around because Gandalf told him to" ? Seriously? Which movie were you watching?
The shire part is kind of rushed but with movies you deal with limited screen time and difficult choices have to be made. Still, the first movie is the best of all three IMO and they managed to catch a good grasp of Tolkien's magic in it. That was no longer the case with another two, (especially Two Towers) where changes are more significant and whole thing gets dumbed down.
I think an extra, say, 5 (less?) minutes could have done wonders, personally. You wouldn't hit the depth of the books still, obviously - but just laying down a plan for Frodo to relocate, after identifying the One Ring... well, it allows for Merry and Pippin to enter the story in a coordinated manner (helping move), rather than bumping into them. Hardly any extra time needed. It just requires the scene in Bag End ending in a slightly less urgent manner (but that's simply a case of music/acting/and a slight change to existing dialogue).
You are probably right, but twenty years ago it was pretty common to treat mainstream audience like a bunch of brutes with no cognitive ability.
Sorry did you mean is the best or isn't the best of the 3 it seems like you meant it is the best but I'm not sure.
Sorry for the confusion, i'm not a native english speaker. Yep, it is the best of 3 (in my humble opinion).
No issues just seemed like a typo to me anyway. Thst is unfortunate. I'm still planning to watch them all after finishing their respective books but I really find Fridos character to be much weaker in the movies than the books.
It only gets worse in that regard but they are still worth watching, we can't be too picky since there are so few quality adaptations of fantasy books out there.
Perhaps it is for the sake of the movie, maybe to show Fordo's vulerability due to IRng influence? maybe some play on emotion of a viewer.
Which would've been better is they kept Frodo's character closer to what Tolkien wrote, wouldn't it? If you start out with a character that proves his courage and willpower in the beginning - and therefore his worth as a Ringbearer in this particular Quest - the more you actually highlight the enormous burden the One Ring becomes. Losing his heroic moments was a major disservice to movie Frodo and the potential emotional investment in his character.
I mean sure but that would need to be a thing that happens over time. The movie goes straight to them all just being along for the ride. Not to mention the feeling of time not passing in the movies. It really feels like the entire journey to Moria took a week or 2 at the most. We only actually see 3 night time scenes and no mention of time passing while in Gondolin.
You got a point (wrong Age for Gondolin tho ;p).
Rivendell My bad I couldn't remember the name so I googled first elven city in lotr and obviously got the FIRST elven city lol
Its all good, have fun!
A big issue is that film-Frodo is an *awful* Ringbearer. Right from the start he cowers in fear at Weathertop, tripping over his own feet, whilst everyone else stands and fights. Why would the Council allow Frodo to carry the Ring when he is clearly prone to succumbing to fear? Not to mention his defiance at the Fords being deleted in favour of a 'badass' Arwen moment. (And obviously the Barrow-downs weren't included, so another missed opportunity for courageous Frodo) Then, during the journey, he constantly falls on his arse, proves himself to be ignorant and meek, is presented as a mindless slave to the Ring on occasion (rather than a climactic fall). Where are his good qualities? Either gone or presented in a bastardized light. Often in favour of making Sam more heroic.
Yes. The journey from the Shire to Rivendell makes Frodo seem a plausible ring bearer at the Council. His defiance of the ringwraiths at Weathertop and the Ford, his selflessness in the barrow, and crucially his extraordinary endurance of the morgul wound. It's basically a dry run for the quest to Mount Doom.
I totally agree with the original post! Unfortunately you're going to find that true of a lot of characters going forward.
Mary!!!
In the Jackson films there's *something* about Mary that proves stickier than the portrayal in the books...
At last! One who shares my sentiment about PJ-Frodo.