Frodo: 📔Book vs. Film

[Radaghast]

There was a question on Quora that I was going to address in the 'One Adaptation to Rule Them All' thread. However, the question pertains to Frodo, who seems to be fairly underrepresented when it comes to analyzing the films' depictions of characters. There seem to be more complaints about Faramir, Denethor and Aragorn than Frodo, and this is very curious to me, since he is most principle character in the book. The author of the Fandomentals article (the impetus for that thread), for instance, has little to say about Frodo, other than that he's too young in the movies but otherwise fares "better than most others mentioned" in the article (mainly Arwen, Éowyn and Faramir), which is extremely puzzling to me. IMHO, what the movies do to him deserves an article or thread, or even an essay, all to itself. Thus, I think it's high time for a such an analysis.

The question is, "Why didn't the Nazgul just kill Frodo on Weathertop instead of only stabbing him?". At first glance, it might seem a silly question, especially if the asker has read the book. But, what if they haven't? One can't just assume that they have; whether or not they should read the book is a separate matter (I do agree they definitely should, though, to be fair, one can't just expect a movie watcher to pick up the book and read it one sitting). But if the question comes from the perspective of a movie watcher, it's a fair question. According to the information given by the movie, there is no reason for the Ringwraiths not to do one of the following: 1) Kill Frodo and take his corpse; 2) capture him alive; or 3) take the Ring. There is plenty of time for the Ringwraiths to do any of these things and run, before Super-Aragorn™ comes charging in with his torches to handily kick their butts; also, there's no reason some of them couldn't fight Aragorn while some others abscond with Frodo. There is also no reason for the Witch-king to stab Frodo particularly in his shoulder.

Speaking of which, some questions unexpectedly increase my understanding of the book, as this one does. It either never occurred to me or I simply forgot that the reason Frodo is stabbed in the shoulder and not closer to the heart is that he attacks the Witch-king first and the WK's stroke thus misses its intended target, Frodo's torso, piercing the shoulder instead. But this underlines a more important point: that Frodo attacks. Not only does this display Frodo's bravery in the face of paralyzing terror, it shows how this bravery and initiative saves him from immediately becoming a slave to the Ringwraiths. This (as well as Frodo's battle cry) also contributes to the Ringwraiths retreating, and opting to wait for the sword sliver to travel to Frodo's heart.

All this apparently whooshed straight over Peter Jackson and both of his screenwriters' skulls after they read the book. Or were they being deliberately obtuse? Because there is no good reason for this change (or any change regarding Frodo for that matter). No matter how you look at it, this is not only incorrect to the story, on the face of it, based on visual information given by the film, it is also bad. I challenge anyone to try and convince me why it isn't a terrible bit of film-making. The movie scene follows the basic sequence of events without really looking at why they occur, and changes the most significant part of it. Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Rivendell after he awakens is hideously glossed over in the film. If it's covered in an extended edition, why? It's important enough to cover in the main cut.

I could go on, and I will, but not in this post. Consider this "Exhibit A" of the crimes the movies commit against Frodo...

*sigh*... Pathetic...😡

 

[Olorgando]

Where are Hobbit-equivalents in Marvel? Or any of the "moving pictures" of the fantasy genre, like GoT or The Witcher or whatever? I am asking as I have not watched anything of the sort since the 1981 "Excalibur" - which started in development as an attempt at LotR, after an even earlier attempt at the Arthurian stuff. Wikipedia: "Returning to his original idea of the Merlin legend, Boorman was eventually able to secure deals that would help him do Excalibur. Much of the imagery and set designs were created with his The Lord of the Rings project in mind.

I'm guessing that Hobbits (or their equivalents) just aren't "heroes" for the primitive H'Wood cookie cutter. And JRRT's descriptions of Frodo's heroism are on the subtle side. "Subtle" is not a word to be found in the H'Wood dictionary. 🙄

 

[Radaghast]

I'm guessing that Hobbits (or their equivalents) just aren't "heroes" for the primitive H'Wood cookie cutter. And JRRT's descriptions of Frodo's heroism are on the subtle side. "Subtle" is not a word to be found in the H'Wood dictionary. 🙄

Especially not if your name is Peter Jackson. But the other hobbits don't suffer, at least as far as valor is concerned (they are misrepresented in other ways). Merry still stabs the Witch-king and Sam is shown to dispatch orcs (with his Mighty Frying-pan) in Moria. The other hobbits all try to defend Frodo on Weathertop and they all fight in Moria.

Which brings me to Exhibit B: Moria. Again, Peej and the screenwriters thumb their nose at the text. Yes, the situation is different; and one can be reasonably expected to run away from a huge monster with a club if it chases you. But why frame it in such as way to make Frodo look so unvaliant in the first place?

Bakshi vs. Jackson

 

[Olorgando]

Which brings me to Exhibit B: Moria. Again, Peej and the screenwriters thumb their nose at the text. Yes, the situation is different; and one can be reasonably expected to run away from a huge monster with a club if it chases you. But why frame it in such as way to make Frodo look so unvaliant in the first place?

Might have to do with casting. I remember reading somewhere that a good director selects (or tries to) people for roles that are geared to their strengths as actors or actresses, instead of trying to get such people to act in roles they're not comfortable with. Roles, of course, as the director wants them portrayed. From the extended editions, it's clear that PJ had the people do several takes in slightly different manners - that lowest-pits-abominable "Go home, Sam." was among them. I have exactly zero idea of other roles Elijah Wood has played. Perhaps PJ selected him specifically to play the totally wimpy Frodo that he had in mind?

 

[Radaghast]

Might have to do with casting. I remember reading somewhere that a good director selects (or tries to) people for roles that are geared to their strengths as actors or actresses, instead of trying to get such people to act in roles they're not comfortable with. Roles, of course, as the director wants them portrayed. From the extended editions, it's clear that PJ had the people to several takes in slightly different manners - that lowest-pits-abominable "Go home, Sam." was among them. I have exactly zero idea of other roles Elijah Wood has played. Perhaps PJ selected him specifically to play the totally wimpy Frodo that he had in mind?

You may be onto something there. Before LoR Wood he did a film called The Faculty, in which he plays a stereotypical high school wimp.

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

This is one of the reasons why Ralph Bakshies adaptation is actually quite underappreciated

 

[Radaghast]

Spot on, aside from his pronunciation of 'Bakshi' (as "Bashki"). And TNC is wrong about it being a box office disappointment. It made $32.6 million on a budget of $4 million. That's actually a phenomenal return on an admittedly modest investment (though $4m meant more in 1978 than it does now; according to Inflation Calculator, it's the equivalent of 18+ million).

Exhibit C:
The omission of Tom Bombadil in the movies necessitates the omission of the Barrow-downs. Except, does it really? All else being equal, Peter Jackson could still have included it and devised some other means for the hobbits to escape. Could have, but didn't, and I think it's deliberate, just as every (wrong) decision in the film regarding Frodo is a conscious decision to contravene the text.

But, anyway, the Barrow-downs is an important scene. You cannot leave it out without gutting the story, or at least proper understanding of Frodo and Tolkien's intent with the character. It is the first instance of Frodo showing extreme bravery in a hopeless odds, a situation that would cause the average person to become paralyzed. It's a scene straight out of a horror film (another reason for Peter Jackson to have included it, given some of his earlier films).

The movie so badly represent Frodo that it's taken as a given that the movie character is the character. There is a thread on this very forum called "Frodo is a Wimp" from 2002 which regards Frodo from a mostly movies-only lens. Frodo's deeds in the books are rarely mentioned and only one poster mentions the Barrow-wights, which seems to go ignored by everyone else in this thread.

This misrepresentation of Frodo is pervasive and far-reaching. A post on WhatCulture.com basically agrees Frodo is a wimp but argues that he has an excuse:

There's been a sort of backlash against Frodo Baggins in recent years, as more and more people revisit The Lord of the Rings films and find themselves staring at a central protagonist who they don't feel matches up to the likes of Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and - hell - Merry and Pippin, too. The problem with this approach, of course, is that Frodo was never supposed to: it's not like he wants to take the ring to Mordor, he just knows he's the only one that can. So although Frodo faints and sobs and whimpers his way through three movies, makes friends with Gollum, and occasionally shouts at his only true friend, Samwise Gamgee, it's easy to forget that this guy has been given what is arguably the biggest burden imaginable, and has reluctantly agreed to do it because there is literally no other choice. Under the circumstances, there's nobody else to do the job, so this pleasant little fellow undertakes the mission.

 

[Radaghast]

Looked for an illustration of the scene of Frodo in the Barrow, but couldn't find much.

Neither of these are accurate, of course. Way too much space and Frodo was kneeling not standing. Also, I think we can safely say the Barrow-wight's arm was not neon green and giant or 20 feet away.

This one does a pretty fair job of following the text, though, except Frodo is supposed to attired as his friends are.

Here's another, better illustration, though this one also forgets that Frodo is dressed in white sacrificial robes.

For the sheer heck of it, some attempts at AI. Not surprisingly, they're not at all accurate, but they do display the spirit of Frodo's warrior spirit fairly (as well as the scariness of the Barrows). Also, to my eye, they serve as a defiance of Peter Jackson's depiction.

Wow, there's actually an action figure? 🤯

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

Wow, there's actually an action figure? 🤯
View attachment 28296

That is the problem with Peter Jacksons trilogies popularity. People know it as The Lord of the Rings when it is only about a few of several adaptation of a much older work. With books like Eragorn, Golden Compass and more poignant for the sake of this discussion the Hobbit, people always see the adaptations as just that, adaptations and that the real story on the pages are not the same story.

With that being said PJ's Frodo is not the worst example of derailing a character from his source material.

Mughi in animation.

Mughi in the original novel.

 

[Radaghast]

First, here's a comprehensive answer on Quora comparing book Frodo and the movie version. It probably won't shut me up about it but it's a good point-by-point comparison for anyone interested; highly recommended:

Second, to go with @Rivendell_librarian 's summary of "Flight to the Ford" here's 'Exhibit D'. The movie completely ignores the book's version and makes it into a boring chase scene (imho) instead of the tense standoff the book offers. I actually wondered in another thread if it wouldn't have indeed made more sense for Glorfindel to take Frodo on his horse and high-tail it to Rivendell. But whatever the reason for this not happening, is basically immaterial. Tolkien could have had Glorfindel take Frodo to Rivendell if he wanted to. But there are a couple of good reasons he didn't. First, there's the rather basic sense that it would be rather anticlimactic (just as the movie scene basically is). Second, Tolkien arranges for Frodo to ride alone for a very specific reason and to make a very specific point about Frodo, you know, the main character of the story. To have him carried across the Ford utterly defeats that point and purposely goes against what Tolkien wrote.

 

[Deimos]

First, here's a comprehensive answer on Quora comparing book Frodo and the movie version. It probably won't shut me up about it but it's a good point-by-point comparison for anyone interested; highly recommended:

Second, to go with @Rivendell_librarian 's summary of "Flight to the Ford" here's 'Exhibit D'. The movie completely ignores the book's version and makes it into a boring chase scene (imho) instead of the tense standoff the book offers. I actually wondered in another thread if it wouldn't have indeed made more sense for Glorfindel to take Frodo on his horse and high-tail it to Rivendell. But whatever the reason for this not happening, is basically immaterial. Tolkien could have had Glorfindel take Frodo to Rivendell. But there are a couple of good reasons he didn't. First, there's the rather basic sense that it would be rather anticlimactic (just as the movie scene basically is). Second, Tolkien arranges for Frodo to ride alone for a very specific reason and to make a very specific point about Frodo, you know, the main character of the story.

That "comprehensive [Quora] answer" was good; well thought out, well argued.

 

[Radaghast]

Here is the Flight to the Ford scene and it's worse than I remember.

A couple of points:

• At 00:02:59 it can clearly be seen that the person in front of Liv Tyler is a short person wearing a mask (probably Kiran Sha as I mentioned in another thread). It looks kind of freaky to me, and not at all lifelike. I'm surprised it's on the screen as long as it is, because it is glaringly obvious.
• At 00:03:04 the Ringwraith is almost close enough to grab Frodo, who is just out of reach. But if they're that close why wouldn't the Ringwraith attack the horse or Arwen with a sword? It also again brings up the question of, if their aim is to grab Frodo, why didn't they take him on Weathertop? There was no reason five of them were needed to fight Aragorn. All of this is incredibly ridiculous. Not a single solitary thing is improved from page to screen or does the book any justice.

Incidentally, perhaps this thread should be moved to the Tolkien's versus Jackson's 'LOTR' subforum? Just wondering...

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

I'm not disagreeing about how PJ's treatment butchers (or botches) the character of Frodo in his treatment of the Flight to the Ford but there is one image in this sequence that really stands out for me:

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

I'm not disagreeing about how PJ's treatment butchers (or botches) the character of Frodo in his treatment of the Flight to the Ford but there is one image in this sequence that really stands out for me:

View attachment 28387

What it reminds me of:

 

[Radaghast]

Here's Bakshi's version, which I will take any day over Jackson's.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

Here's Bakshi's version, which I will take any day over Jackson's.

This version gives Frodo his due for this part of the story but I'm not convinced about the colour of the sky (Van Gogh et al might have liked it) and the black horses have weird red eyes like their Nazgul riders. I've always thought the horses were ordinary mortal horses who happen to be controlled by malign riders: this version seems to portray them as horse wraiths.

I like the distinctive helmets, rather like this film clip: no CGI, real people, real horses and great music

 

[Radaghast]

Yeah, the horses were just normal horses trained to bear contact with the Riders. Perhaps some kind of hypnosis was involved.

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

This version gives Frodo his due for this part of the story but I'm not convinced about the colour of the sky (Van Gogh et al might have liked it) and the black horses have weird red eyes like their Nazgul riders. I've always thought the horses were ordinary mortal horses who happen to be controlled by malign riders: this version seems to portray them as horse wraiths.

I like the distinctive helmets, rather like this film clip: no CGI, real people, real horses and great music

Well, you are not alone in not liking the art direction of Bakshie's film. In fact Christopher Tolkien did not even give the movie I chance after only having seen a few stills from it.

So, as much as Christopher did not care for Jackson's adaptation the new Zealander director at least got him into a seat at the cinema.

 

[Radaghast]

Yeah, it's not a visually pretty film. The high-contrast Ringwraiths and orcs are jarring in themselves but especially when juxtaposed with the protagonists. And all the extras are just footage of people that was put through another kind of filter.

 

[Þráinn Þórhallsson]

Yeah, it's not a visually pretty film. The high-contrast Ringwraiths and orcs are jarring in themselves but especially when juxtaposed with the protagonists. And all the extras are just films of people and put through another kind of filter.

Well, at least it did not look like a Walt Disney production. So that is at least something that adheres to Tolkien's wishes.