Re: LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring - Screencap Thingie

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:14 pm

No its because whenever he does something in the book which shows his courage and bravery they screw it up in the films.

At Bree its Frodo's ego that gets him, he is showing off, singing and dancing on a table and its a mistimed leap that makes him fall. In the film he is just clumsy and slips and falls on his arse.
In both he falls but only in PJ's is that all that's going on.

At Weathertop book Frodo defies the Riders, attempts to stab the Witch-King and slashes the Witch-Kings cloak and uses the name of Elbereth against them before being stabbed.

In the film he backs off in terror, drops his sword and falls over again and gets stabbed as he cowers there.

When he is wounded in the book Frodo refuses to accept the plan that he will be carried off to safety on the basis he will not leave his friends in danger.

In the film he drools a bit.

At the Ford in the book Frodo rides alone. He defies the Riders for a second time at the Ford and challenges them to come and take the Ring.

In the film he is baggage to Arwen in every sense of the word, does nothing, says nothing, and ends the scene by falling off the fucking horse Mad

Everything we see off Frodo during the all important set up for his character and introduction in Fellowship is bad.

And worse, because its missing both the entire Crickhollow/Conspiracy Unmasked set up the viewer unlike the reader doesn't get to share Frodo's desire not to hurt or bring harm on his friends,or how much he dreading having to tell them he is leaving them, or see him overcoming his terror in the Barrow, the viewer misses so much of seeing his personal standards its all the more important that we see his courage and bravery come out in what the film does leave in.
But we get the opposite.

by Radaghast Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:21 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:You lot have obviously seen a different film to me. When did a gentle sensitive soul become spineless and gormless? Oh that's right in the 21st century where people think that you have to be macho and kick ass to be a valid male character. Whats the matter, is he too feminine for you? Is he not butch enough? I blame too much Transformer and Avenger films.

One can be sensitive and still be brave, like book-Frodo. He doesn't have to be "butch"*; just do the things he does in the source material rather than the polar opposite.

*Conversely, I would object to the excess testosterone exhibited by Aragorn and Legolas.

by Radaghast Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:30 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No its because whenever he does something in the book which shows his courage and bravery they screw it up in the films.

...

And worse, because its missing both the entire Crickhollow/Conspiracy Unmasked set up the viewer unlike the reader doesn't get to share Frodo's desire not to hurt or bring harm on his friends,or how much he dreading having to tell them he is leaving them, or see him overcoming his terror in the Barrow, the viewer misses so much of seeing his personal standards its all the more important that we see his courage and bravery come out in what the film does leave in.
But we get the opposite.

Yeah, I think the films actually strive to depict the polar opposite where Frodo is concerned (again, can't even begin to imagine why), rather than just merely screwing it up.

There is also the sequence with the troll. In the book, Frodo stabs it in the foot, making it take it out of the door so the Company can close it. In the movie, he's actively avoiding it and not contributing to the battle at all, unlike everybody else. He does actually strike the troll in the hand, but even this comes off as cowardly as it's not meant earnest, only to make the troll let go of him so he can go hide in a corner. He also piteously calls for Aragorn when cornered by the troll. Then, to top things off, the fake death* is milked bone-dry.

*Of course, such a thrust by a large spear would probably pulverize his ribcage, mithril shirt or not, so he quite possibly would be killed anyway, but that's neither here nor there

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:46 pm

I've said before in relation to this, though I've never understood the why of it, that it seems to me they take Frodo from the section at the end where they are crossing Mordor, right after escaping the tower- and Frodo basically avows pacifism from then on and refuses to carry any sword, even Sting, and he displays this pacifism again at the very end with Saruman in the Shire and his desire no one be killed- and made film Frodo that from the very start.

But like I say, why someone would do this instead of developing the character to that point as in the book, I have no idea. It seems utterly bizzarre- one of the most bizarre fundamental changes they made.

by Radaghast Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:43 am

One thing that occurred to me is that perhaps Elijah Wood played him that way in screen tests or what have you, and PJ liked what he saw and just went with it. Just conjecture, of course.

by azriel Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:42 am

More like Walsh or Boyens saw Elijah play Frodo, said, "Awh, hes cute" & from then on treated him like a little lost puppy & wanted to "mother" him. You can be both the gentlest person, sweet & quiet but still have the heart of a lion. You can be both. Nothing wrong with being gentle but when its called for, you can pull out all the stops & look danger in the eye & remain steadfast & determined to not back down. Its called courage, & these odd New Zealanders just couldnt grasp that. I feel to say Frodo is feminine is to say then he must be weak ? I dont consider myself weak. Im a laaaady but Ive stood up to all sorts of tough shit, squared my jaw so to speak & even if my knees WERE jelly Ive stood my ground. Frodo & Sam could have bounced off each other in character development & built a strong friendship if the book was adhered to. Sam is so protective of Frodo in the film it begs you wonder why ? Frodo is like one of those hangers on you get at the school gates. They are sipid & copy what you wear etc, no imagination of their own. Sam repeatedly said that "I promised Gandalf" when he is questioned why he looks after Frodo.Surely it should be because he is backing up a good, strong friend ? not just because you promised someone else ? Does he not have any thoughts or feelings ? Yet Sam lies for Frodo, gives Frodo his last bit of bread & last drop of water which Frodo greedily doesnt mind taking.Picks Frodo up ( again ! ) & encourages Frodo on, I think thats why people say Sam is the real hero, Sam is the strongest one, Look what the comparison is !! Id tell Frodo to fook off.

by Radaghast Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:05 pm

Yeah, even the average pacifist would try to defend himself and others. But it's also a matter of defying evil; an unwillingness to take any shit from wicked bastards.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:11 pm

Well I got a lot of gentle courage from Frodo. it was the courage of dogged determination rather than steely eyed courage. It was a very nice change to have a main character so very different and fresh from the usual badassery heros normally have to evince. Frodo in the film is unique to heros and totally unlike any hero in an epic fantasy film before or since. Frodo manages to avoid all the usual clichés, he is quiet and gentle but he still manages to be brave and gets on with it. The films give Sam the contrasted role of stolid solid bravery, it show us that Sam was ALWAYS the real hero of the book, he was always the one with more real courage, there has to be this contrast to give Sam the opportunity to show us that it was he who was braver deep down, Frodo was always more delicate and fragile, he had moments or flashes of defiance whereas Sam was hardier and was the real backbone of the fellowship and the film explored this contrast perfectly, if Frodo had been more obviously heroic we wouldn't have appreciated Sam as much, if they had been similar we wouldn't have noticed Sam, making Frodo more passive made Sam more important. He is everyman a normal person caught up in things too large for him to contemplate but in the end Sam is stronger a character than Frodo. I couldn't imagine a more diverse character to that of film Bilbo in The Hobbit, where they had him killing innocent creatures and taking to the sword. I would much rather the heroism was subtle. I had zero problems with Frodo or Elijah Woods performance.

by azriel Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:08 pm

I couldn't imagine a more diverse character to that of film Bilbo in The Hobbit, where they had him killing innocent creatures and taking to the sword. I would much rather the heroism was subtle. Mrs Figg.

MMMmmmm, that doesnt flow right ? Peejers makes him instantly aggressive, yet, in LOTRs he is a cuddly old uncle ? Make your mind up peejers ! Bilbo is either strong because of the Ring OR because he was told to wave Sting about ? The Hobbit was way to staggered, none of the pieces really fitted. I actually did like Elijah's Frodo....to a point, just wish they had given him "something" IF they knew of book Frodo why did they choose Elijah Wood if they thought he couldnt carry it off ? or are we back at the Gospel according to the Coven ?

by Radaghast Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:28 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:Well I got a lot of gentle courage from Frodo. it was the courage of dogged determination rather than steely eyed courage. It was a very nice change to have a main character so very different and fresh from the usual badassery heros normally have to evince. Frodo in the film is unique to heros and totally unlike any hero in an epic fantasy film before or since. Frodo manages to avoid all the usual clichés, he is quiet and gentle but he still manages to be brave and gets on with it. The films give Sam the contrasted role of stolid solid bravery, it show us that Sam was ALWAYS the real hero of the book, he was always the one with more real courage, there has to be this contrast to give Sam the opportunity to show us that it was he who was braver deep down, Frodo was always more delicate and fragile, he had moments or flashes of defiance whereas Sam was hardier and was the real backbone of the fellowship and the film explored this contrast perfectly, if Frodo had been more obviously heroic we wouldn't have appreciated Sam as much, if they had been similar we wouldn't have noticed Sam, making Frodo more passive made Sam more important. He is everyman a normal person caught up in things too large for him to contemplate but in the end Sam is stronger a character than Frodo. I couldn't imagine a more diverse character to that of film Bilbo in The Hobbit, where they had him killing innocent creatures and taking to the sword. I would much rather the heroism was subtle. I had zero problems with Frodo or Elijah Woods performance.

Except Frodo doesn't actually do anything heroic in the movies where he is nothing but a whimpering, weepy-eyed coward . He doesn't have to be a contrast with Sam; that's pure poppycock. Their quest requires both of them to be as courageous as possible.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:07 pm

Where Figg exactly is Frodo brave and courageous?- where is that displayed at Weathertop for example?- the book example is terrified but still resists within the limits of his strength- film version is terrified and cant act because he is so scared, he just drops his sword and falls over. Where is the courage there? Where is the bravery?

Where is the courage or bravery at the Ford?- in the film he is just baggage.

Genuinely maybe I am missing something Figg- but if so you will have to point out to me exactly where in those scenes Frodo is either brave or courageous. All I see is cowardly and terrified, and incapable of acting.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:23 pm

Radaghast wrote:
Mrs Figg wrote:Well I got a lot of gentle courage from Frodo. it was the courage of dogged determination rather than steely eyed courage. It was a very nice change to have a main character so very different and fresh from the usual badassery heros normally have to evince. Frodo in the film is unique to heros and totally unlike any hero in an epic fantasy film before or since. Frodo manages to avoid all the usual clichés, he is quiet and gentle but he still manages to be brave and gets on with it. The films give Sam the contrasted role of stolid solid bravery, it show us that Sam was ALWAYS the real hero of the book, he was always the one with more real courage, there has to be this contrast to give Sam the opportunity to show us that it was he who was braver deep down, Frodo was always more delicate and fragile, he had moments or flashes of defiance whereas Sam was hardier and was the real backbone of the fellowship and the film explored this contrast perfectly, if Frodo had been more obviously heroic we wouldn't have appreciated Sam as much, if they had been similar we wouldn't have noticed Sam, making Frodo more passive made Sam more important. He is everyman a normal person caught up in things too large for him to contemplate but in the end Sam is stronger a character than Frodo. I couldn't imagine a more diverse character to that of film Bilbo in The Hobbit, where they had him killing innocent creatures and taking to the sword. I would much rather the heroism was subtle. I had zero problems with Frodo or Elijah Woods performance.
Except Frodo doesn't actually do anything heroic in the movies where he is nothing but a whimpering, weepy-eyed coward . He doesn't have to be a contrast with Sam; that's pure poppycock. Their quest requires both of them to be as courageous as possible.

in your opinion.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:25 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where Figg exactly is Frodo brave and courageous?- where is that displayed at Weathertop for example?- the book example is terrified but still resists within the limits of his strength- film version is terrified and cant act because he is so scared, he just drops his sword and falls over. Where is the courage there? Where is the bravery?

Where is the courage or bravery at the Ford?- in the film he is just baggage.

Genuinely maybe I am missing something Figg- but if so you will have to point out to me exactly where in those scenes Frodo is either brave or courageous. All I see is cowardly and terrified, and incapable of acting.

unfortunately you are missing something. incapacity to go beyond your own brick wall prejudice against PJ. open your mind to other possibilities and other peoples opinions. being dogmatic is very limiting.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:28 pm

unfortunately you are missing something- Figg

So you keep saying- why is why I asked in all honesty what am I missing?
I do not see where in those scenes we see Frodo being either brave or courageous- even ignoring the book versions of those scenes- I don't see it on the screen.

I am therefore asking you- who say you can see where he is being brave and courageous- where those moments are in the scenes so I can see them too.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:48 pm

You are determined to find him weak, therefore he is. Who but a brave person would willingly go to freeking MORDOR?? come on you tell me. is that the act of a wimp or a coward. Would YOU go to Mordor on your own? with no chance of getting back alive, with the whole landscape crawling with Nazgul and Orcs. seriously you still think a tiny Hobbit with no natural defences with only one friend for comfort, in the middle of the wilderness, followed by a homicidal psychokiller Gollum, is a sissy? you are off your chump. he never complains or moans, he just gets on with it.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:53 pm

I mean it- I really am not looking for a fight tonight. I am trying to understand your position.

If I understand your previous post right you don't think film Frodo is shown as brave or courageous at all. And that the reason for this is that in the films the main character is not Frodo, but Sam.
And that Frodo is deliberately shown to be useless to make Sam look good.
But I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:56 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I mean it- I really am not looking for a fight tonight. I am trying to understand your position.

If I understand your previous post right you don't think film Frodo is shown as brave or courageous at all. And that the reason for this is that in the films the main character is not Frodo, but Sam.
And that Frodo is deliberately shown to be useless to make Sam look good.
But I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not.

no. you have misunderstood. see above.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:06 pm

Who but a brave person would willingly go to freeking MORDOR?? come on you tell me. is that the act of a wimp or a coward. Would YOU go to Mordor on your own? with no chance of getting back alive, with the whole landscape crawling with Nazgul and Orcs. seriously you still think a tiny Hobbit with no natural defences with only one friend for comfort, in the middle of the wilderness, followed by a homicidal psychokiller Gollum, is a sissy? you are off your chump. he never complains or moans, he just gets on with it.- Figg

I don't disagree with that- he is all those things in the book. But he is also brave, he doesn't fall over in the face of danger, he doesn't drop his sword out of terror when confronted with Ring Wraiths. He doesn't get carried about like baggage. But he does in the film- why?
Why can't he be all the things you say, which he already is in the book, and be like in the book brave when faced with danger?

And there use of Frodo is arbitrary. For example in the films, after the Caradhras scene they are deciding if they should go into Moria or not. And the world travelled expert Ranger, the hardy far travelled man, the world wise wizard, and the dwarf whose people built the place, all let the hobbit- who doesn't know anything about where they are going, had never heard of it before and has been on one forced journey in his life, this one- decide the route for them. Why? Because they needed to give Frodo something important to do.

They go to the extreme of having a scene that makes no sense, just so he has has something to do.

And yet when the book gives him stuff to do, they do the opposite. Why?

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:30 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Who but a brave person would willingly go to freeking MORDOR?? come on you tell me. is that the act of a wimp or a coward. Would YOU go to Mordor on your own? with no chance of getting back alive, with the whole landscape crawling with Nazgul and Orcs. seriously you still think a tiny Hobbit with no natural defences with only one friend for comfort, in the middle of the wilderness, followed by a homicidal psychokiller Gollum, is a sissy? you are off your chump. he never complains or moans, he just gets on with it.- Figg

I don't disagree with that- he is all those things in the book. But he is also brave, he doesn't fall over in the face of danger, he doesn't drop his sword out of terror when confronted with Ring Wraiths. He doesn't get carried about like baggage. But he does in the film- why?
Why can't he be all the things you say, which he already is in the book, and be like in the book brave when faced with danger?

If you were confronted by a Ringwraith I bet you would 'drop your sword' too. personally I would grow a tail and need to change my pants, so dropping a sword is pretty good going.

And there use of Frodo is arbitrary. For example in the films, after the Caradhras scene they are deciding if they should go into Moria or not. And the world travelled expert Ranger, the hardy far travelled man, the world wise wizard, and the dwarf whose people built the place, all let the hobbit- who doesn't know anything about where they are going, had never heard of it before and has been on one forced journey in his life, this one- decide the route for them. Why? Because they needed to give Frodo something important to do.

he is the ring bearer. they were just being polite.

They go to the extreme of having a scene that makes no sense, just so he has has something to do.

And yet when the book gives him stuff to do, they do the opposite. Why?

by David H Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:32 pm

I think the answer to "why" is that they wanted to have the forces of Evil seem truly scary they chose Frodo as the eyes eyes which the audience would see the Evil, therefore it followed that Frodo needed to be terrified. It's more of a horror-film approach rather than an action-adventure approach, and it isn't consistent by any means, but I think it's how Jackson was approaching the story for the most part.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:44 pm

that's a good point Dave, I never thought of that.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:45 pm

If you were confronted by a Ringwraith I bet you would 'drop your sword' too. personally I would grow a tail and need to change my pants, so dropping a sword is pretty good going.- Figg

What you or I would do is not relevant. Its what Frodo would do that is relevant.
Book Frodo uses his sword, he is terrified, but he stands up to the Witch-King and cries out the name of Elbereth like a prayer to give himself courage.

Film version drops his sword and falls over and tries to crawl away in terror. That's a big change in character from book to film.

'I think the answer to "why" is that they wanted to have the forces of Evil seem truly scary they chose Frodo as the eyes eyes which the audience would see the Evil, therefore it followed that Frodo needed to be terrified.'- David

That at least offers some explanation that sort of makes sense- form if you don't care about losing the book character along the way sort of thinking- but again it doesn't explain making him not just useless at the Ford, but irrelevant.

Or as Radaghast pointed out why he only hides in the fight in Moria. And did they not realise the cumulative effect this would have, if every time he faced danger he copped out?

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:53 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If you were confronted by a Ringwraith I bet you would 'drop your sword' too. personally I would grow a tail and need to change my pants, so dropping a sword is pretty good going.- Figg

What you or I would do is not relevant. Its what Frodo would do that is relevant.
Book Frodo uses his sword, he is terrified, but he stands up to the Witch-King and cries out the name of Elbereth like a prayer to give himself courage.

Film version drops his sword and falls over and tries to crawl away in terror. That's a big change in character from book to film.

um I think you are deliberately misrepresenting what happened to suit your agenda. The film version is more realistic as a reaction to fear. yet you are criticising him for showing fear, as if its a bad thing. Its unusual to see a 'hero' show fear, why are you judging him negatively?

'I think the answer to "why" is that they wanted to have the forces of Evil seem truly scary they chose Frodo as the eyes eyes which the audience would see the Evil, therefore it followed that Frodo needed to be terrified.'- David

That at least offers some explanation that sort of makes sense- form if you don't care about losing the book character along the way sort of thinking- but again it doesn't explain making him not just useless at the Ford, but irrelevant.

Or as Radaghast pointed out why he only hides in the fight in Moria. And did they not realise the cumulative effect this would have, if every time he faced danger he copped out?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:01 pm

'The film version is more realistic as a reaction to fear. yet you are criticising him for showing fear, as if its a bad thing.'- Figg

No, I am criticising them for consistently, whenever Frodo faces danger, of making him do the complete opposite of what he does in the book they are adapting.
He shows plenty fear in the book at Weathertop, he is out right terrified, but he doesn't lose his courage altogether. He is active, not passive in events. They continually make their lead character passive in the face of danger. He is so passive at the Ford he is barely concious for most of it. Compare the same scene in the book where he defies the Riders with the very last shred of his will power. And arguably its only because Frodo has the strength to defy their calling to him that they have to cross the Ford to get to him at all and so can be swept away.
Film version passes out and falls off his horse.

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:24 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'The film version is more realistic as a reaction to fear. yet you are criticising him for showing fear, as if its a bad thing.'- Figg

No, I am criticising them for consistently, whenever Frodo faces danger, of making him do the complete opposite of what he does in the book they are adapting.
He shows plenty fear in the book at Weathertop, he is out right terrified, but he doesn't lose his courage altogether. He is active, not passive in events. They continually make their lead character passive in the face of danger. He is so passive at the Ford he is barely concious for most of it. Compare the same scene in the book where he defies the Riders with the very last shred of his will power. And arguably its only because Frodo has the strength to defy their calling to him that they have to cross the Ford to get to him at all and so can be swept away.
Film version passes out and falls off his horse.

I think the kind of courage that Frodo showed in the books is very hard to translate to a modern audience. Frodo had a kind of old fashioned stiff upper lip kind of courage that had short bursts of intense activity. he wasn't always full on courageous, he went through dramatic ups and downs, the film version was more homogeneous. he is shown physically suffering with a terrible cross to bear, the weight of the ring making him more desolate with every mile. he is shown as having pity and mercy to Gollum, he is vulnerable but still asks 'what must I do?' and 'I will take it'. His strength isn't the usual obvious bluster of heros, its more subtle than that.