Frodo's change from book to film

[Frodo Baggins]

I agree wholly with CSteefel, PJ did a disservice to Frodo in the movies. Frodo is a very brave character throughout the books, but PJ turned him into a snivelling, whining basket case who has to be dragged by Gollum and pushed by Sam to Mordor.

Examples:

As I often say, PJ took away Frodo's finest moment at the Ford of Bruinen. In the book, he faces the wraiths across the river, draws his sword and says "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall neither me nor the Ring." PJ has him in a stupor, wheezing in Arwen's lap. Cute, but not impressive.

On Weathertop, in the book, Frodo charges the Ringwraiths and manages to stab one (the Witch-King himself unless I am mistaken). PJ, again, takes away his fire and has Frodo whimper, drop his sword, run away and trip over his cloak. Pitiful, just pitiful.

And Book Frodo would never had chosen Gollum over Sam or told Sam to go away. To me that was the greatest travesty of any changes to the story.

[Boromir88]

Frodo starts out as a very brave and admirable person in the movies. Somebody that you do see strength in. From The Shire scene, he learns all about the Ring, then tells Gandalf 'What must I do?' A very good moment for Frodo as he shows he is stepping away from his comfortable home in The Shire and will bear the Ring (at least for the time being).

Then at the Council of Elrond when amongst the arguing he steps up again and says 'I will take it.' Both instances show Frodo's strength of sacrificing his own comfortable life, and putting the fate of Middle-earth literally on his shoulders. He did something no one else seemed to have the guts to want to do, and that was to take the Ring to Mount Doom. (As a side note, I do sorely miss Bilbo's presence at the Council and miss his heartfelt proposal of taking the Ring)

However, since those two moments there's not much to praise Frodo about. He doesn't show really any of these qualities again through the rest of the movie. They just see him as a pathetic weakling that if it wasn't for Sam then the quest would have failed. Now there's no doubt that Sam was a key factor in keeping Frodo going, but if it wasn't for Frodo Sam would have failed! Aye, that's the truth. They both kept eachohter going, and you don't see that in the movies.

It gets to such absurdity where people posted threads about Sam should just kill Frodo because he's useless and everyone would be much better off. Sam deserves more praise than what he got, Frodo deserves none of it because he's a whiny baby. And all this is what you feel when you watch Frodo in the movies. He starts out as a strong, brave, determined character, but that all fades away and is forgotten at the latest by The Two Towers.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And all this is what you feel when you watch Frodo in the movies. He starts out as a strong, brave, determined character, but that all fades away and is forgotten at the latest by The Two Towers.

Maybe that's PJ's way of trying to bring the role of the Ring forward, how it consumes Frodo and makes him weak? I have many objections to PJ's handling of things in the movie, but making Frodo a bit more vulnerable to the temptation and corruption of the Ring is not one of them.

[Boromir88]

As much as I would like to hear you say 'Boro you are perfectly right and you know best,' I just can't make you do that. As this is completely opinionated, it's a matter of personal like and dislike (couldn't you just say though that I am absolutely right? )

Anyway, I see your point, however I think a skilled director could show the agony and power the Ring had over Frodo without making him a total weak whiner that falls down anytime something scares him. Tolkien displays the torment Frodo went through, yet makes him an admirable and strong-willed character. Any director worth half his salt could have effectively done the same thing. There's nothing wrong with Jackson attempting to do what he did, but when people get the wrong idea and just see Frodo as a pathetic useless weakling that needs to die (which is the impression people have gotten), Jackson missed his mark in my eyes.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Maybe that's PJ's way of trying to bring the role of the Ring forward, how it consumes Frodo and makes him weak? I have many objections to PJ's handling of things in the movie, but making Frodo a bit more vulnerable to the temptation and corruption of the Ring is not one of them.

I would be more impressed by this argument if Frodo had been depicted as strong, for the Ring's power over a strong Frodo would be more convincing than over a weak Frodo.

Frodo's Elvishness is another aspect from the Books that is pretty much gone in the movies. His Elvishness is in my mind his strength of spirit; but PJ reduces the spiritual battle to a psychological one. A shame.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

However, since those two moments there's not much to praise Frodo about. He doesn't show really any of these qualities again through the rest of the movie. They just see him as a pathetic weakling that if it wasn't for Sam then the quest would have failed. Now there's no doubt that Sam was a key factor in keeping Frodo going, but if it wasn't for Frodo Sam would have failed! Aye, that's the truth. They both kept eachohter going, and you don't see that in the movies.

You forgot to mention one of Frodo's bravest highlights- his decision to leave The Fellowship and venture out on his own to continue his path from Amon Hen. No doubt that his weakness was shown way too early, though.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

I agree wholly with CSteefel, PJ did a disservice to Frodo in the movies. Frodo is a very brave character throughout the books, but PJ turned him into a snivelling, whining basket case who has to be dragged by Gollum and pushed by Sam to Mordor.

Examples:

As I often say, PJ took away Frodo's finest moment at the Ford of Bruinen. In the book, he faces the wraiths across the river, draws his sword and says "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall neither me nor the Ring." PJ has him in a stupor, wheezing in Arwen's lap. Cute, but not impressive.

On Weathertop, in the book, Frodo charges the Ringwraiths and manages to stab one (the Witch-King himself unless I am mistaken). PJ, again, takes away his fire and has Frodo whimper, drop his sword, run away and trip over his cloak. Pitiful, just pitiful.

And Book Frodo would never had chosen Gollum over Sam or told Sam to go away. To me that was the greatest travesty of any changes to the story.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. I had forgotten about these examples. Especially the last, this is completely out of character to the Frodo in the book.

I remember back in the late 60s, the bumper stickers or T-shirts that said "Frodo Lives"--a clear recognition of the noble sacrifice made by Frodo. If somebody only saw the PJ films, this would never occur to them...

[Lotrelf]

I agree with others here. There's a very thin line between weak and vulnerable, and movies seemed to be crossing the line. Frodo Was vulnerable but he was NOT weak. People speak of the "unknown" Frodo that doesn't belong to the Books and bash him.

[Pervinca Took]

I was watching "Hobitit" recently on YouTube (a Finnish dramatisation of the hobbitocentric parts of LOTR, adapted from a stage play and televised in Finland in 1993) and wondering whether Peter Jackson might have seen and been influenced by it. Although the Frodo in this is much maturer than PJ's, he does seem more passive than in the book. Not just at Weathertop, but also in the Barrow.

[Jabbawocky Took]

'Basket case', that's a good way to describe Frodo in th film, CSteefel. I had often felt he was reduced to being a mere mule, someone who physically transports the Ring, but with almost all the spiritual, intellectual and moral struggle removed. I agree as has been mentioned above, one of the biggest losses to his character was the cutting out of his dialogue with Faramir. That was powerful in the book.

[FerniesApple]

I thought Elijah Wood was inspired casting, his expressive little face was a perfect balance between the jovial younger Hobbits and serious Sam. Frodo was vulnerable which made the horror of his situation all the more heartbreaking. if they had made him more aggressive or 'manly' it would have been a bit less interesting, the fact that a male hero can be gentle and vulnerable and NOT be a woman is very unusual and I like it. Indeed I find (generally from reading a lot on Tolkien forums) that male fans dislike Frodo/Elijah more than female fans, women tend to find a more gentle Frodo appealing whereas the men think he is a wuss compared to the book. I think film Frodo is more nuanced, I like that he doesnt fight as much as in the book, he is still as determined to go on, but it makes Sam stand out as the solid strength that keeps them both going, in the book they are more evenly matched, in the films Frodo is more fey and almost Elven looking. I like him.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

Frodo was vulnerable which made the horror of his situation all the more heartbreaking. if they had made him more aggressive or 'manly' it would have been a bit less interesting, the fact that a male hero can be gentle and vulnerable and NOT be a woman is very unusual and I like it.

Well, Book-Frodo is vulnerable and gentle aswell on many, many occasions. But he is also able to stand up for himself in really tough situations. This (very hobbit-like) kind of courage is what Gandalf sees in Frodo, when he deems him to be the most qualified Hobbit of the shire. The first movie took away a large chunk of this and replaced it with him being completly defensless: We don´t see him defying the will of the ring and rescuing his friends in the barrow downs; Instead of fighting back on the weathertop he falls to the ground (which he does alot in the trilogy) and so on. Like you I can see the appeal of this approach. I can understand why they decided to handle Frodo´s character in this manner but they overdid it for me.

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

Indeed I find (generally from reading a lot on Tolkien forums) that male fans dislike Frodo/Elijah more than female fans, women tend to find a more gentle Frodo appealing whereas the men think he is a wuss compared to the book

I don´t know why this has to be a gender issue. I guess some people do want to feel something else than just compassion or pity (for this poor little fella). Especially when said character is supposed to be the protagonist of a movie.

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

Frodo is more nuanced, I like that he doesnt fight as much as in the book,

I don´t see how stripping his character of certain traits, whilst highlighting other traits results in a more nuanced characterisation. Again you seem to imply that Frodo is this aggressive, actionhero kinda guy in the books which is not the case. Frodo has alot of reserved, introvert and vulnerable moments in the novel but they are more in balance with his courage and determination.