Two Frodos

[Naaramare]

::laughs:: I never really had this dilemma. Mostly because the BBC production is still the first audioalization (is that a word?) I ever heard and thus, all the voices, syntax and even visuals I have will be forever linked to that series of tapes.

Then again, I've had much more time to listen to the tapes than I have had to watch the movie, so I suppose we'll see.

I've also never had this dilemma because everything I see of everyone's interpretations of Tolkien's works simply gets added together in my mind, with details added and extracted until I end up with a Frodo I like. The Frodo of my mind looks a great deal like Elijah, but his voice is and forever will be Ian Holm's (BBC production). Ian McKellan is a perfect visual Gandalf (for me) and his voice and whoever played the BBC's voice have melded and added together until Gandalf's voice can sound in my head.

Sharon, you're right; there is a definite difference between a purly book-based Frodo and Jackson's movie-Frodo. As other have said, this is mostly because of time differences. The same can be said for Aragorn. In the book, by the time we meet Aragorn all of his big life's questions have been solved (internally). He will have to become King and he knows it, for otherwise he can't marry Arwen. That major issue, whether he has the right and ability to take up his heritage, is solved in his mind.

But that's something that's much easier to make interesting in narrative than in movie-form, and I understand (and approve of) the changes made for the movies. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Then again, I also approve of the changes made to Arwen, and I know I'm in a minority there, so . . .