How much Frodo grew... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

ninlaith · 07-29-2004, 07:10 PM

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.

Encaitare · 07-29-2004, 08:55 PM

I think that Frodo definitely changed but this was only under the influence of the Ring. But I also think, contrary to what a lot of people seem to be saying, that Elijah Wood, while a bit too young for the role, really did an excellent job. When he's inside Mount Doom holding out the Ring, the look in his eyes is so chilling.

Lathriel · 07-29-2004, 09:16 PM

I agree Encaitare. I think Elijah was only about 18 or 19 when they began filming LOTR.

Might I add Elijah is one of the few Kiddie stars that didn't dissapear after he was grown-up like most do.

ninlaith · 07-30-2004, 09:02 AM

Yeah he was only 17 when he began his role as Frodo. And it is amazing how he has lasted so long. He had a very good career when he was just a kid and then he just disappeared for awhile. Then he took on some very unmeaningful roles which didn't suit him at all. I think his performance as Frodo could really boost his career. He brought so much to the character and was able to show the audience Frodo's emotional growth and many of Frodo's other characteristics throughout his journey.

elfwishes999 · 07-30-2004, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninlaith

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.

THANK YOU!!!! for once, someone sees the movie the way i did

Morsul the Dark · 07-30-2004, 07:09 PM

Perhaps one could say Frodo grew but I think it was merely he was ecoming like gollum sly inhumane untrusting

Sam trully grew he became strong enough for them both especially when this line comes up "I can't carry it for you but I can carry you!!"

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 07-31-2004, 10:51 AM

I think the story of Frodo in the movies, as well as the story as a whole (who am I kidding? The world itself would be much, much better) if it were not for the ridiculous lembas saga in RotK.

How could you possibly say that Frodo grew when he got fooled by a scheme that a normal six year-old could see through?

ninlaith · 07-31-2004, 03:34 PM

That part made me so angry. The entire part was all of the directors poetic licence. I understand directors want to make a film their own but not change it completly. There could have been so much more focus on Frodo and Sam's friendship if they hadn't added that stuff. That part in real life would have been a matter of if Frodo trusted Sam, not the fact that Gollum did not eat lembas. There is no way that part could have been considered growth for Frodo as Eomer said. If Tolkien could be mad at any part in any of those movies I think it would be that part of ROTK.

Encaitare · 07-31-2004, 08:40 PM

Yeah, that part was more than a bit irritating. It did an excellent job of showing how much the Ring was taking hold of Frodo, that he would turn on Sam, but firstly, it was somewhat unnecessary, and secondly, Sam never would have turned back. I don't know why finding the lembas on the cliff below would suddenly make him turn around, but oh well. PJ did an amazing job with the movies and I guess a couple of major departures from canon can be excused. A slightly imperfect movie is better than no movie at all, right?

Morsul the Dark · 07-31-2004, 09:47 PM

Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question)

07-29-2004, 07:10 PM	#1
ninlaith Wight Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: in my hobbit hole Posts: 204	It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings. __________________ "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!"-Bilbo Baggins

07-29-2004, 09:16 PM	#3
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	I agree Encaitare. I think Elijah was only about 18 or 19 when they began filming LOTR. Might I add Elijah is one of the few Kiddie stars that didn't dissapear after he was grown-up like most do. __________________ Back again

07-30-2004, 09:02 AM	#4
ninlaith Wight Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: in my hobbit hole Posts: 204	Yeah he was only 17 when he began his role as Frodo. And it is amazing how he has lasted so long. He had a very good career when he was just a kid and then he just disappeared for awhile. Then he took on some very unmeaningful roles which didn't suit him at all. I think his performance as Frodo could really boost his career. He brought so much to the character and was able to show the audience Frodo's emotional growth and many of Frodo's other characteristics throughout his journey. __________________ "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!"-Bilbo Baggins Last edited by ninlaith; 07-30-2004 at 07:18 PM.

07-30-2004, 07:09 PM	#6
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,448	Perhaps one could say Frodo grew but I think it was merely he was ecoming like gollum sly inhumane untrusting Sam trully grew he became strong enough for them both especially when this line comes up "I can't carry it for you but I can carry you!!" __________________ Morsul the Resurrected

07-31-2004, 10:51 AM	#7
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	I think the story of Frodo in the movies, as well as the story as a whole (who am I kidding? The world itself would be much, much better) if it were not for the ridiculous lembas saga in RotK. How could you possibly say that Frodo grew when he got fooled by a scheme that a normal six year-old could see through? __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

07-29-2004, 08:55 PM	#2
Encaitare Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise Posts: 1,814	I think that Frodo definitely changed but this was only under the influence of the Ring. But I also think, contrary to what a lot of people seem to be saying, that Elijah Wood, while a bit too young for the role, really did an excellent job. When he's inside Mount Doom holding out the Ring, the look in his eyes is so chilling.

07-31-2004, 03:34 PM	#8
ninlaith Wight Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: in my hobbit hole Posts: 204	That part made me so angry. The entire part was all of the directors poetic licence. I understand directors want to make a film their own but not change it completly. There could have been so much more focus on Frodo and Sam's friendship if they hadn't added that stuff. That part in real life would have been a matter of if Frodo trusted Sam, not the fact that Gollum did not eat lembas. There is no way that part could have been considered growth for Frodo as Eomer said. If Tolkien could be mad at any part in any of those movies I think it would be that part of ROTK. __________________ "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!"-Bilbo Baggins

07-31-2004, 08:40 PM	#9
Encaitare Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise Posts: 1,814	Yeah, that part was more than a bit irritating. It did an excellent job of showing how much the Ring was taking hold of Frodo, that he would turn on Sam, but firstly, it was somewhat unnecessary, and secondly, Sam never would have turned back. I don't know why finding the lembas on the cliff below would suddenly make him turn around, but oh well. PJ did an amazing job with the movies and I guess a couple of major departures from canon can be excused. A slightly imperfect movie is better than no movie at all, right?

07-31-2004, 09:47 PM	#10
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,448	Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question) __________________ Morsul the Resurrected