Re: LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring - Screencap Thingie

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:39 am

Mrs Figg wrote:
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.

I have a lot of opinions about these movies, but this is demonstrable fact. Frodo in the movies runs and backs away from things when he's not being carried away from danger.

Or perhaps he's brave in the sense that boldly brave Sir Robin was brave.

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:40 am

Mrs Figg wrote: 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.

That's the point. Someone brave enough to undertake such a monumental task would not balk at using the sword in this hand. I think you are off your chump, whatever that means.

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:41 am

Mrs Figg wrote:
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.

I see your "brick wall" and raise you a "set of rose-colored glasses" that make you unable to be at all critical of PJ.

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:44 am

Mrs Figg 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.

Possibly. But whatever anyone else would do, we're not talking about whoever else. We're talking about Frodo who, in the book is established as having tried to defend himself against the Witch-king. To face down the Ring-wraiths at the ford. To show initiative by stabbing the troll foot.

To take away all these feats of courage and grit serves no purpose at all. I feel almost embarrassed for Elijah Wood for having portrayed such a spineless milksop.

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 12:52 am

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.

Exactly. Courage is not the absence of fear, it's the only condition in which courage can exist. The book says as much, that Frodo was scared out of his wits, (he wasn't some action hero or Transformer). Tolkien was trying make a point about Frodo in particular (and hobbits in general), to foreshadow his being the Ring-bearer before he volunteered to take up the role. There is no point to making Frodo look cowardly and ineffectual. It goes against his being brave enough to take up the quest.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:58 pm

But Frodo is not cowardly in the film version. People just cant stand a male character who shows vulnerability or gentleness. It irritates and worries people, and I personally find its mainly other males who find Frodo a 'milksop' because they have been brainwashed from birth that males shouldn't show such 'weakness'. It also grates on their nerves that PJ and co decided to make Frodo less feisty. It doesn't effect what happens in the slightest, its just another interpretation. Frodo challenging the Ringwraiths on Weathertop was a bit of gung-ho which backfired spectacularly, it might have been more stereotypically brave, but it was very foolish. At least Frodo in the films was a bit more sensible.

by Lancebloke Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:49 pm

Well... another one I have not had time to read all of but will comment on anyway.

I don't think 'people' generally have an issue with a male who shows vulnerability. There is the classic action movie genre where the hero needs to be a bad ass, quite often this is female (Lara Croft, Katniss Everdeen, Rey in Star Wars etc) but these should be taken in their own little corner.

LotR movies turned a lot of characters in to clichés... comic dwarf, hunky ranger, cool elf etc etc. Frodo was actually quite a scaredy cat when it came to direct confrontation and then brave when it came to grand choices (like taking the ring, breaking the fellowship etc). I didn't think about that when watching the films as they don't require brain power and therefore just enjoyed them, but thinking back I find his character quite contradictary and mainly to serve the plot rather than for any other reason.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:06 pm

Frodo was actually quite a scaredy cat when it came to direct confrontation and then brave when it came to grand choices (like taking the ring, breaking the fellowship etc). Lance

that's not contradictory Lance. When you think about it, Frodo was braver when he had time to think and decide what was right, and in Bagend and in Rivendell when he was most safe he actually made the most dangerous decisions. On the contrary when he was in immediate danger he became afraid, he wasn't a warrior and would have been useless in a fight, it was perfectly normal to be afraid. But he had decided to go on the quest when he was safe and could easily have welched out, but he didn't, he had quiet dignity.
I have a question though. If Frodo had been a girl would you have called her a coward or a sissy?

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:46 pm

When you think about it, Frodo was braver when he had time to think and decide what was right, and in Bagend and in Rivendell when he was most safe he actually made the most dangerous decisions. On the contrary when he was in immediate danger he became afraid- Figg

In the film yes, not in the book. In the book he acts also when he has no time to think- this is hobbit bravery, what Gandalf calls 'in a pinch'- that's when the best of them comes out. Frodo in a pinch is brave. He doesn't stride about being brave, he isn't full of machismo and bluster, but in a pinch, he stands up for himself- hobbits do- we learn that from the tales of the Bulllroarer and the Fell Winter- when Gandalf first encountered them and saw the best of them 'in a pinch', and we see it in the Scouring of the Shire. Hobbit courage and bravery coming out in the pinch.

Film Frodo is entirely lacking this hobbit characteristic. In a pinch he is afraid yes, and he should be no argument there, bloody terrified, but he succumbs to fear every time, fearful is all he is- such as at Weathertop, or just trying to hide from the troll in Moria when everyone else is fighting, including his fellow hobbits- who are displaying the 'in a pinch' hobbit trait.
And then they also remove his heroic acts- so they don't have him stab the troll foot- they have him hide from the troll- another huge deviation in character from book Frodo to film.

Maybe if it happened only the first time he was in danger, and he got braver as time went on it might be forgiveable. But its consistent, as eventually passive film Frodo catches up to the point in Mordor where we have passive book Frodo, renouncing all violence. So in the film, as they start with a passive Frodo- that's all we get- so we lose that whole character journey. Given they already excised the entire Master/servant class division arc too that doesn't leave a lot for film Frodo but to look wide eyed and awed, or wide eyed and sad, and fall over a lot.

But you do seem to be at least conceding Figg that film Frodo is not in fact brave in situations where he himself is in immediate physical harm but just afraid.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:When you think about it, Frodo was braver when he had time to think and decide what was right, and in Bagend and in Rivendell when he was most safe he actually made the most dangerous decisions. On the contrary when he was in immediate danger he became afraid- Figg

In the film yes, not in the book. In the book he acts also when he has no time to think- this is hobbit bravery, what Gandalf calls 'in a pinch'- that's when the best of them comes out. Frodo in a pinch is brave. He doesn't stride about being brave, he isn't full of machismo and bluster, but in a pinch, he stands up for himself- hobbits do- we learn that from the tales of the Bulllroarer and the Fell Winter- when Gandalf first encountered them and saw the best of them 'in a pinch', and we see it in the Scouring of the Shire. Hobbit courage and bravery coming out in the pinch.

Film Frodo is entirely lacking this hobbit characteristic. In a pinch he is afraid yes, and he should be no argument there, bloody terrified, but he succumbs to fear every time, fearful is all he is- such as at Weathertop, or just trying to hide from the troll in Moria when everyone else is fighting, including his fellow hobbits- who are displaying the 'in a pinch' hobbit trait.

So you agree that in the films the other Hobbits showed typical Hobbit bravery? Merry Pippin and most of all Sam showed this ability to react 'in a pinch'. Therefore PJ and co were perfectly capable of understanding this aspect of being a hobbit? yes. they did. but they chose to adapt Frodo's personality in this respect. They made him more vulnerable and ethereal, more Elven looking, he hardly ever shows aggression, aggression is left to the warriors, being feisty in a pinch is left to the other Hobbits, Frodo is there to suffer under the power of The Ring. He HAS to be shown as slightly different from the other more hearty Hobbits. In a visual medium they chose to adapt Frodo's pain and suffering through his quiet gentleness. I like what they did.

And then they also remove his heroic acts- so they don't have him stab the troll foot- they have him hide from the troll- another huge deviation in character from book Frodo to film.

Maybe if it happened only the first time he was in danger, and he got braver as time went on it might be forgiveable. But its consistent, as eventually passive film Frodo catches up to the point in Mordor where we have passive book Frodo, renouncing all violence. So in the film, as they start with a passive Frodo- that's all we get- so we lose that whole character journey. Given they already excised the entire Master/servant class division arc too that doesn't leave a lot for film Frodo but to look wide eyed and awed, or wide eyed and sad, and fall over a lot.

That's just a wild simplification and ignores a great deal. it makes me wonder if you ever really understood Frodo in the film.

But you do seem to be at least conceding Figg that film Frodo is not in fact brave in situations where he himself is in immediate physical harm but just afraid.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:01 pm

'So you agree that in the films the other Hobbits showed typical Hobbit bravery?'- Figg

Not exactly, in that its an over-the-top PJ display of it, not the books realistic version, but yes in the sense that the other hobbits act bravely when forced into a corner. Their fear does not overcome them- this is best exemplified in what I think is PJ's best fight sequence in all three films- the first encounter at Moria- well its good up till the troll enters that is- but in-particular there is a zooming shot on the hobbits as they draw there swords, and it perfectly captures both the fear and the adrenalin. With Frodo you just get the fear.

'but they chose to adapt Frodo's personality in this respect.'

So you are agreeing they completely changed this aspect of Frodo's character? Making him passive instead of active in dangerous situations and taking out his acts of physical bravery or heroism?

'Frodo is there to suffer under the power of The Ring. He HAS to be shown as slightly different from the other more hearty Hobbits. '

Why does he need to be useless when confronted with danger to convey this? The book manages to balance thoughtful and brave.
Book Frodo goes on a journey to pacifism, but its not a journey if you start where you finish and don't move.
In the book there are several arcs going on for Frodo- there is his relationship with the Ring, there is is his relationship with Sam, and then secondary to the other hobbits felt through personal responsibility to them, there is his journey to a pacifist stance, and there is his spiritual journey culminating in his sense of failure and continued desire for the Ring after the events at Mt Doom.

Of these PJ screws the Ring thing at Mt Doom, removes the upper class master, lower class servant role reversal, and Frodo coming to understand Sams value as a fellow being, not a servant, there is no journey to pacifism, and their is no spiritual journey again because Pj screws up the ending.
Whats left from the book of Frodo's personal journey?
He is the main character- why should it be to much for me to expect that the basic character and actions and arcs of the main character remain intact when adapted?

'I like what they did'

Which is fair enough. I happen to think Tolkiens multifaceted Frodo is more interesting. But either way you have to admit film Frodo is not much like book Frodo. Its missing a lot of his character, and most of his story arcs. Film Frodo suffers from one of the most common failings of these films- over oversimplification. Whats left is just bland.

by halfwise Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:21 pm

I have a question though. If Frodo had been a girl would you have called her a coward or a sissy?

I think this is a good point. But I still think we would have wanted girl-Frodo to show a little more pluck.

by David H Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:37 pm

I think a decision was made at the time that Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were cast to divide the characteristics of Frodo and Sam between the two film characters differently than in the books, and to contrast the two against each other. Elijah was a child actor used to playing younger than his age, with eyes that could get big as saucers. That choice wasn't an accident.

Though the book characters are my favorites by far, I can see why Jackson might have wanted to make the fear more obvious in the movie and might choose Elijah to convey that. What's more I thought it worked well enough on a first watching with as much going on in the movie as there was. A more nuanced performance would have been harder for a 10 year old to follow, and that was important.

But I also agree that it started getting on my nerves by the 3rd or 4th viewing.

by halfwise Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:13 pm

Yeah, a lot were about the eyes.

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:44 pm

I have a question though. If Frodo had been a girl would you have called her a coward or a sissy?

If it went against the book for no good reason, yes, I would.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:48 pm

Elijah was perfect for the role imo. Its funny that they got that assembly of actors just at the perfect age for each character they played. Apart from Ian and Hugo who never seem to age.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:50 pm

halfwise wrote:
I have a question though. If Frodo had been a girl would you have called her a coward or a sissy?

I think this is a good point. But I still think we would have wanted girl-Frodo to show a little more pluck.

Its funny how the others have skipped over this question. Nod

by Radaghast Fri Jan 15, 2016 11:52 pm

It's funny how you skipped over my response to it Rolling Eyes

Anyway, what's the next screen cap? Very Happy

by David H Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:15 am

Mrs Figg wrote:
halfwise wrote:
I have a question though. If Frodo had been a girl would you have called her a coward or a sissy?

I think this is a good point. But I still think we would have wanted girl-Frodo to show a little more pluck.

Its funny how the others have skipped over this question.

If Frodo had been a girl, who would you have cast for the movie?

by azriel Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:55 am

If Frodo was a girl she'd be called Frieda or something & then we'd be getting a "Tauriel" moment so.......... still moaning ! Laughing

by Lancebloke Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:46 am

Figg - if Frodo were a girl then I would expect her to show the same character traits as the book. I imagine we would have probably got a cliché warrior girl hobbit if that had happened.

by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:43 pm

Radaghast wrote:It's funny how you skipped over my response to it

Anyway, what's the next screen cap?

because your answer didn't address my question. it skipped over it.

by halfwise Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:58 pm

I think he answered it - saying it would not have made a difference.

by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:58 pm

Lancebloke wrote:Figg - if Frodo were a girl then I would expect her to show the same character traits as the book. I imagine we would have probably got a cliché warrior girl hobbit if that had happened.

But would you have called the female Frodo a sissy or a milksop or a coward for showing fear? we are talking about the film version obviously. This is my argument. Not that Frodo from the book was different from Frodo in the films but how people reacted to film Frodo, some people (not you) using school-yard insults because people despised him showing fear. I remember being at junior school and if any boy was a bit effeminate or 'soft' they would be bullied without pity. Mainly this was coming from heterosexual boys who were uncomfortable or despised any shows of weakness. But if Frodo had been a girl would she have been despised as much for showing fear and having a cry? I don't think she would because its ok for girls to be soft and 'crybabies'. I just think its odd. I suppose I respond differently to film Frodo because I quite like his sensitivity, but I get that it might be weird for men to see another man like this. I look on film Frodo as essentially a child and I think that's where the confusion lies. If you look on Frodo as a fully grown man you would expect him (and this is a cliché) to act more manly (hypothesis) but I look on him as I would on a child therefore its ok for him to be less butch. I think film Frodo appeals to children because he is non threatening, they can relate to him, whereas teenagers can relate to Legolas, and adults to Aragorn and Boromir. But yeah I saw Elijah Wood as essentially a child with childlike qualities, big eyes and all the rest of it.

by halfwise Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:07 pm

I think the Frodo-as-child is a better comparison than Frodo-as-girl. It explains more of the screenwriter's decisions and the acting choices.