Sean Astin's acting

[Eledhwen]

The Sam in the book didn't need to be hard; his strength was his love for Frodo, which gave him the ability to encourage, embrace, rescue and carry his master to the quest's end. It was only when Frodo was endangered that Sam got dangerous.

If PJ's sam gets more hardened, then his Frodo would have to do the same, as it was Sam's influence that kept Frodo in touch with the hobbit he really was.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
The Sam in the book didn't need to be hard

I agree, but he wasn't a child-like innocent either, which is what had been claimed for him,
and which was why I suggested that claim had been based on a different book!

 

[Gandalf White]

Of course I liked the part in the books, but in the film it was horribly maimed

lol, I'm glad you liked it in the books, I was beginning to worry! What exactly was wrong with it in the movie, could you please explain?

 

[Rúmil]

Well I can't give you a rational analysis, it just sounded cheesy, lame and childish to me. It's a subjective point of view of course....

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

You've been reading a different book about Sam!

Here is the Sam I've been reading in the book:

“What? Me, go and see Elves and all! Hooray!”

“Rope! Well if I don’t deserve to be hung on the end of one as a warning to numbskulls! Your nowt but a ninnyhammer, Sam Gamgee: that’s what the gaffer said to me often enough, it being a word of his.”
“Stop chattering” said Frodo.

“An Oliphant it was! So there ARE Oliphants and I have seen one. What a life! But no one at home will believe me. Well if that’s over, I’ll have a bit of sleep.” (and he keels over for a nap.)

“Save me!” Said Sam turning white, and then scarlet. “There I go again! ‘When ever you open your big mouth, you put your foot in it’ the Gaffer used to say to me, and right enough. Oh dear, Oh dear!”

“Master, dear Master!” “Frodo, Mr. Frodo! . . . Don’t leave me here alone! It’s your Sam calling. Don’t go where I can’t follow!”

Not to mention, book Sam was 12 years younger than Frodo. Sean Astin is at least 12 years older than Elijah.

(Maybe this stuff is subjective, too.)

 

[Rúmil]

I hink there is a difference; Sam was not an educated person, he tended to babble and sometimes acted foolishly all that (But so do Frodo, Pippin and other and nobler character) ; but he wasn't an idiot, as Frodo points out ot himself in the last chapter of FOTR:

I hate leaving them, and like this without any explanation. But surely they will understand. Sam will.

He was well able to understand peoples motives, feelings, personalities, and furthermore he was a deeply humble person. In the book, you see that although he does not share at all the same view as his master on Gollum, he keeps it to himself; having an occasional strong word escape you about someone you don't trust, when you are angry, is another thing than painfully lecturing your master who knows far better than you. Sam, in the film, is portayed:

a/ as thinking that his master has a great deal to learn from him
b/ as being so think he can't understand what a sacrifice is ('look after Sam. He will not understand')


The real Sam, granted, did not understand such things as geopolitics or philosophy, but he was sharp, could think quick in a crisis (he even outsmarts Strider when they are looking for Frodo) and was all in all very intelligent in his own way.



The 'stories' bit in the book was Sam telling Frodo how he felt, he was not lecturing him about his duties.

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Just because I experienced Sam with a fanciful, child-like personality, certainly doesn't mean I thought he was an idiot. Far from it.

What I mean't by Frodo becoming more 'hard' was in his angry attacks on Sam in the movie version.

And, I did not feel like Sam was lecturing Frodo, with that speech. They seemed more like equals here, than in the book, and Sam was trying to lift him out of his doldrum.
---------
Rumil, you might be an interesting person to meet, just to observe what a completely opposite person from myself must be like in real life. What with our differing Faramir interpretation, our difference on the movie points we find touching, our difference in appreciation for Sam's speech, and his book-to-film characterization. And even in our different degree of hatred over using adjectives as nouns. (Just a thought - I'm sure we would hate each other!)

 

[Rúmil]

I appreciate you didn't think Sam was an idiot, I was just stressing the differences between the book and the film


As for Frodo's 'hardening', it was obiviously a mistake.

 

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Oops, I added my edit before I saw your answer. Hope it's Ok anyway.

 

[Rúmil]

no bother


PS: (adjectives as nouns? I din't get that one?)

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
. Samwise Gamgee is not a stealth tactician, he's a gardener - of high honour.

LOL!! good one!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

The problem with tolkiens characters is that they are not realist in every sense. All the traits are real (love, hate, concern, bumbling, nobel, etc), but some traits possesed by them are not consistant with others. This works fine in the book, but in a movie they would look too fancifull. Especially in a movie where the realism detail is very good (costumes, swords, etc). The characters have to be as realistic and believable.

How comical was the character "Sir Robin" in The Holy Grail. He is a Knight, denotes nobility, courage and the like, yet he runs away from a battle. The two traits just don't work together, except for comedy.

In the book, sam (just for an example), is both a bumbling boob, an innocent soul, and a nobel friend. If PJ were to film him this way, his character would be wholey unbelivable. The way Sam is presented in the movie is different than the book, but he is totally believable in the movie.

The converse is true also. If sam were written in the book the way he was in the movie, he'd be a less effective character than Tolkiens sam.

People keep complaining about movies being interested in the special effects. Well, thats why movies were invented. If just reading the book was enough, why start making movies? So, don't blame PJ for using the medium to it's fullest extent and doing a good job. Movies are movies and books are books. The eye and brain process information in a different way when you don't have to use your imagination to create the scenery etc like you do in a book. This is why character details are less problematic for writers. They've got tons of room and time to hide the incosistancies. When a writer writes the word "blue", your brain has to process blue. Then apply "blue" to whatever he is discribing. In a movie, the blue sky is automatically processed, along with every other discriptive explanation in the book, freeing the mind up to be critical of other things. IE, cartoonish characters in a serious story about good and evil. It just don't work.

 

[Rúmil]

Do you mean to say you think it is impossible to be both innocent in soul and noble in spirit?

In the movie, IMHO, he is too sugary and childish to be believable.

Another thing: you seem quite adamant that Lotr has 'inconsistancies'. Would you please explain which ones?

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin Here is the Sam I've been reading in the book(Maybe this stuff is subjective, too.)

Yes, it's obviously subjective.
I don't see any of those quotations as coming from a "child-like innocent".

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Rúmil
adjectives as nouns? I didn't get that one

Nor did I; I was just about to ask Mindy to explain

 

[Rúmil]

She has sent me a PM; it refers to the time I objected to the phrase 'all things middle-earth'

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Rúmil
Do you mean to say you think it is impossible to be both innocent in soul and noble in spirit?

In the movie, IMHO, he is too sugary and childish to be believable.

Another thing: you seem quite adamant that Lotr has 'inconsistancies'. Would you please explain which ones?

No, but add to that a bumbling boob and the character is doomed to be remembered as a "lucky" boob and not a character that MEANT to succeed.

"Sugary"? He would have tied gollum up and left him to die. Sugary? Maybe you are referring to his affections for frodo? Yeah he was devoted, but sugary? No way.

Inconsistancies......

1) Sauron is "stupid". Why put clothes on ringwraiths? So you can see them coming? Heck, Gollum figured it out. Put on ring. Become invisible. Kill whoever you like and win. Sauron's got 9 of em and he might as well tie bells on their necks.

2) Sam leaves a fire unattended within eyesite of mordor, embarasses himself with faramir, and spills the beans about the ring. And this is the guy making sure frodo succeeds? hahaha!

I could go on, but the point is made.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer ....Tolkien's characters....some traits possessed by them are not consistent with others.
In the book, Sam (just for an example), is both a bumbling boob, an innocent soul, and a noble friend.
The way Sam is presented in the movie is different than the book, but he is totally believable in the movie.
People keep complaining about movies being interested in the special effects.
....freeing the mind up to be critical of other things. IE, cartoonish characters in a serious story about good and evil. It just don't work.

You've lost me on "bumbling boob", but accepting that, and realising that you can't have both" of three things, I see no reason why one person shouldn't show at least three different aspects at different times.
Believable in the film? The Sam who is in awe of elves isn't satisfied with Galadriel's gift - that's believeable, or consistent?
I haven't seen ANY complaints about special effects. Surely, they're the single best feature of the FOTR film?
You're critical of cartoonish characters in a serious story? The film's Pippin & Merry, and sometimes Gimli, are pretty cartoonish, and FOTR is a serious story about......

 

[Rúmil]

There are ways to explain the 'inconsistencies' you talk about, Foe-Hammer:

cloaks on ringwraiths:

1/ they had to have interaction with humans, like Bill Ferny and Maggot.

2/ in their clad form, their power of terror was increased, as the mind could form a clearer and more dreadful image of the danger. This is obviously what they would need in their mission. Also, they could have a more direct relation with the living world when they were clad.


And, even if there was no way to explain the facts you point out (and I do grant you that the explanations I offer may be a little far-fetched), how are they inconsistencies? Dictators, special agents, experienced soldiers, all make mistakes. A mistake is only stupid in afterthought. A world where everyone would do just the right thing, and never mess up, would paradoxically be less realistic. Also, you forget the 'finger of God' element. Evil characters have a 'strange misfortune' all the time.

I you were suddenly in Sam's position, suddenly thrust into the company of men far wiser and more intelligent than yourself, and whom you were half tempted to trust, you might do worse.

As the book plainly indicates, Sam is aware of the risk of lighting a fire, but also that if they don't take adequate sustenance they were going to collapse. Also, if Gollum had not gone away and let them sleep, they would not have been caught.

Nothing in the book strikes me as being cartoonish. As in real life, some situations are serious, some call for laughter. No character in Lotr in essentially comic relief.

 

[smeagol444]

I can see what you r sayin about the Sam and Frodo bit---it was a bit weird--- but i think necessary. Sam is frodos most loyal companion