Frodo's change from book to film

[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.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Leaf

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.


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.

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.

firstly how do you know its the reason of being able to stand up for himself that Gandalf chooses him? Its more like the Tookish qualities of adventure seeking that Bilbo also had hidden under his comfort loving exterior, or the fact he was related to Bilbo, Gandalf probably didnt know Frodo all that well having made brief appearances in Hobbiton before the Party. I think Gandalf felt that ALL Hobbits could be courageous in times of need, and Frodo seemed the fey almost Elven seeming relative of Bilbo.

Secondly we dont see the Barrow Downs at all so we dont know what would have happened in the film. 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. Its a bit like showing Bilbo fighting off orcs and spiders way too soon in The Hobbit films, 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.

It doesnt have to be a gender issue, its just my observations of the gender issue. Men and women like different things, its not a problem.

No I dont think book Frodo is an aggressive guy, you are reading too much into my words. But book Frodo is more assertive in certain situations, Weathertop is one, but I really cant think of many examples where book Frodo is using more traditionally heroic methods like waving his sword about and stabbing things than in the film. I dont agree that they stripped away many of his traits of courage in the films. It depends on your definition of courage, sometimes courage is interior and thats what I liked about Woods performance.

[Nerwen]

FerniesApple, the groups "men" and "women" are made up of millions and millions of individuals, with their own personalities, opinions, tastes and interests, so I'd say it's best to avoid making sweeping statements about "what women like" based on what I'd guess is a pretty small sample.

I mean, yes,*some* women (especially teenage girls, which is what I suspect your sample mostly is) have a sort of "thing" for males who seem fragile or "broken"; I suppose it's an equivalent of the damsel-in-distress archetype. But again, that's some women, not "women".

For my part, no, I didn't care for the way the films handled Frodo at all, and to me it suggests that the writers were in fact working from the basic assumption that any man *not* a traditional action hero type must be a total sissy. I don't think they added nuance, I think they removed it.

(As for Bilbo, the new films are all over the map on *his* characterisation.)

[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

[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.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

FerniesApple, the groups "men" and "women" are made up of millions and millions of individuals, with their own personalities, opinions, tastes and interests, so I'd say it's best to avoid making sweeping statements about "what women like" based on what I'd guess is a pretty small sample.

I mean, yes,*some* women (especially teenage girls, which is what I suspect your sample mostly is) have a sort of "thing" for males who seem fragile or "broken"; I suppose it's an equivalent of the damsel-in-distress archetype. But again, that's some women, not "women".

For my part, no, I didn't care for the way the films handled Frodo at all, and to me it suggests that the writers were in fact working from the basic assumption that any man *not* a traditional action hero type must be a total sissy. I don't think they added nuance, I think they removed it.

(As for Bilbo, the new films are all over the map on *his* characterisation.)

thats rather a sweeping statement about teenage girls

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

thats rather a sweeping statement about teenage girls

What, you don't like the bit where I make a concession to your point of view? Okay, I'll take it back then.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What, you don't like the bit where I make a concession to your point of view? Okay, I'll take it back then.

No I didnt like it. It was rather patronizing. So yeah take it back.