Why does Frodo reveal the Ring?

It is very possible that the scene with Frodo and the Winged Nazgul was just a convenient way for Mr. Jackson to move the plot along in another gratifying action-packed way (grrrr). My theory is that the scene will not have any impact on the overall storyline

Click to expand...

Ah, but by that time, Aragorn has revealed himself and Sauron is sure that this, Isildur's heir, is the new Ring Lord.

Click to expand...

In movie version TTT, this is why, as I feared after reading early reviews weeks ago, I believe we will see no more of Saruman's palantir. Neither will Pippin or Aragorn. This scene is specifically inserted to give Sauron cause to move on Gondor now. (This is what I suspect anyway. If I am proven wrong, then this scene will be gratuitous.)

Once again I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe it in the books, I'm saying that if we do believe it in the books then we should also give some leeway to the movies, which, you might have forgotten, are based on the books.
In any case, Frodo in the movie DOES NOT OFFER THE RING TO THE NAZGUL!!! I thought we'd been over this before- he tries to put it on, doubtlessly in response to the will of the Black Rider, just like at Weathertop. Before we go around complaining about what a bunch of silliness this is, we should consider what the source is:

From the Stairs of Cirith Ungol
Frodo felt his senses reeling and his mind darkening. Then suddenly, as if some force were at work other than his own wil, he began to hurry, tottering forward, his groping hands held out, his head lolling from side to side.
...
Even as these thoughts pierced him {Frodo} with dread and held him bound as with a spell, the Rider halted suddenly, right before the entrance of the bridge, and behind him all the host stood still. There was a pause, a dead silence. Maybe it was the Ring that called to the Wraith-lord, and for a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley. This way and that turned the dark head helmed and crowned with fear, sweeping the shadows with its unseen eyes. Frodo waited, like a bird at the approach of a snake, unable to move. And as he waited, he felt, more urgent than ever before, the command that he should put on the Ring. But great as the pressure was, he felt no inclination now to yield to it. He knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king--not yet. There was no longer any answer to that command in his own will, dismayed by terror though it was, and he felt only the beating upon him of a great power from outside. It took his hand, and as Frodo watched with his mind, not willing it but in suspense (as if he looked on some old story far away), it moved the hand inch by inch toward the chain upon his neck.

Click to expand...

This is a Nazgul sensing the Ring on the borders of Mordor, rather more dangerous than sensing it in Osgiliath where at least the Nazgul could assume men of Gondor possessed it.

Aragil... that's such a different scene!

If the Nazgul had known that the Ring was in the valley... that would have been GAME OVER for the Free Peoples. He knew something was wrong... but he couldn't put his finger on what it was. "For a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley."

And I don't think Frodo tried to kill Sam after that scene, either! Oh no... at this point Frodo is much more able to resist the Nazgul than he had been at Weathertop.

Action Jackson has not only murdered a great many characters... he's also redefined the nature of the Ring and the Nazgul. Such changes may be small... and they may be inspired by other bits and fragments in Tolkien's works... but the consequences of these changes can only mushroom larger and larger.

This leads ultimately to tragic results in Tone, Texture, Theme, and Meaning.

All jakcsons trying to do is to make the movie more interesting, but the book is interesting enough so who knows.

Originally posted by Goroshimura
Aragil... that's such a different scene!

If the Nazgul had known that the Ring was in the valley... that would have been GAME OVER for the Free Peoples. He knew something was wrong... but he couldn't put his finger on what it was. "For a moment he was troubled, sensing some other power whithin his valley."

And I don't think Frodo tried to kill Sam after that scene, either! Oh no... at this point Frodo is much more able to resist the Nazgul than he had been at Weathertop.

Action Jackson has not only murdered a great many characters... he's also redefined the nature of the Ring and the Nazgul. Such changes may be small... and they may be inspired by other bits and fragments in Tolkien's works... but the consequences of these changes can only mushroom larger and larger.

This leads ultimately to tragic results in Tone, Texture, Theme, and Meaning.

Click to expand...

Yes, Jackson has weakened Frodo greatly which is going to make it even more difficult for ROTK to be anywhere near to the book. From the beginning, Jackson has devalued the hobbit: he took his moment of "glory" from him at the fords, giving it instead to Arwen while Frodo lay inert and dying in her arms, saved only by her intervention and her exchange of her grace for his life.

By the time Frodo reaches Osgiliath (of all places!) he is comparing himself in his own mind to Gollum. Frodo has possessed the Ring for how long? Under a year (as opposed to the 17 years he possessed it in the book)? Gollum possessed the Ring for 500 years even in the film and Frodo can already see himself in the wretched creature! I would not say by any means that Frodo is "the best hobbit in the Shire" as Bilbo and Gandalf have stated.

Personally, I am worried about Frodo terrible 'rolling-inward-eye' affliction that seemed to happen every few minutes. I mean, one moment you are watching a conversation, next thing he seems to be trying to peer inside his own head...what's up with that?

Frodo's character from the outset has been weak, and as the film progresses it has become steadily weaker. Don't get me wrong, his relationship with Gollum was excellent IMHO. However, the general failure for him to actually manage anything alone by virtue of his own wisdom, learning and initiative leaves him generally the poorer relation to his 'actual' character as we would understand him.

yeah i agree with Ancalagon about Frodo's eye rolls. also, somtimes you hear his voice as being REALLY deep and scary!

Originally posted by Ancalogon
Frodo's character from the outset has been weak, and as the film progresses it has become steadily weaker. Don't get me wrong, his relationship with Gollum was excellent IMHO. However, the general failure for him to actually manage anything alone by virtue of his own wisdom, learning and initiative leaves him generally the poorer relation to his 'actual' character as we would understand him.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
By the time Frodo reaches Osgiliath (of all places!) he is comparing himself in his own mind to Gollum. Frodo has possessed the Ring for how long? Under a year (as opposed to the 17 years he possessed it in the book)? Gollum possessed the Ring for 500 years even in the film and Frodo can already see himself in the wretched creature! I would not say by any means that Frodo is "the best hobbit in the Shire" as Bilbo and Gandalf have stated.

Click to expand...

Anc and MM- What's the fear here? That Frodo is so weak now that he won't be credible as a failure at the cracks of doom? Lest we forget, Frodo is fighting the long (or not so long in this case) defeat- in the end he does not succeed due to his own innate strength. What is the problem if he looks compartively weaker at an earlier part in the story? The fact of the matter is that his will still fails him at the cracks, and he is saved (in part) because of the mercy he has shown to Gollum. And THAT has been very well conveyed in the film, IMO.
For those of you complaining about the strength of his character he had three very strong moments in the films already- the first in Bag End where he accepts the mission to take the Ring out of the Shire, the second in Rivendell when he volunteers to take the Ring to Morrrdorrr, and the third at Amon Hen when he decides to leave the rest of the Fellowship. Add to that the way in which he handles Gollum in the second movie. This does take strength, just not the same type you use to attack a Nazgul. I guess this sort of strength of character is not enough for you- you all want him fighting Nazgul as well? Is this the same crowd the complains so loudly about there being "too much action and not enough character development" in Two Towers? Frankly, I don't know what would please you all, other than the movie having not been made in the first place. If it's Jackson's invention, then it is a travesty. If it's a scene that Jackson has moved from a different part of the books, then it is a butchering. If it's the same dialogue in the same place then it is poorly acted, poorly executed, or misinterpreted. If it's something different, but equally unbelievable to an event that happens in the books then suddenly it defies all laws of logic and would immediately result in the end of the Ring quest. I suppose that if Frodo and Sam are mistaken for men instead of Orcs in Mordor in the movie version of RotK, then you guys will once again be up in arms. "How could anyone think that Hobbits are men? Orcs are completely understandable and that doesn't in the least stretch believability because Orcs are mindless hive creatures that can't tell a Stoor from spoor. But for Jackson to have the Hobbits mistaken for short men? Please."
The facts of the movie are thus: Frodo almost put on the Ring due to the will of the Nazgul. He did not offer it to the Nazgul, and for all the Nazgul know the Ring is now heading from Osgiliath to Minas Tirith. Faramir did not steal the Ring or succomb to it's temptation in any way, thus showing the difference between himself and a man like Boromir. Frodo's resistance to the Ring is decreasing, exactly as it did in the books. Gollum for a time seemed to be changed, but because of perceived injustice towards him he never fully repented.
The facts of the book are thus: Frodo almost put on the Ring due to the will of the Nazgul. He did not put on the Ring when prompted by the Witch-King, and for whatever reason the Witch-King did not realize that the Ring was present in his valley. Faramir did not steal he Ring or in any way succomb to it's powers, thus redessing the mis-deeds of his brother. The Ring is getting hold of Frodo- slowing him down and changing him. The mercy and pity shown by Frodo to Gollum for a while reformed the wretch, but in the end his lust for the Ring (combined with a poorly-timed comment by Sam) erases what good had come over the creature.
Between Goro and MM I have little doubt that none of the above will seem to be significantly related between book and movie, and I'm sure that the details which I didn't mention will seem to be far the more important in terms of exposition. Oh well, perhaps somebody out there understands me (I can only hope).

I am with you, Aragil. It seems there are people here who would resent any change to the book, without acknowledging that without changes we would never see a LotR movie in the first place.

I have outlined similar logic to yours earlier in this thread, about the film events triggering Sauron's premature attack on Minas Tirith. Yet none of these vocal critics have acknowledged the logic of this argument.

Never mind.

fG

You know, I get a bit of a pain when those who believe that everything Mr. Jackson does is "just fine, thank you" (no matter how idiotic it is) constantly attempt to bolster their argument by saying, "and if he hadn't done "that" (whatever it is), you wouldn't have had a film! So there!!" To begin with, who cares? If we have lived this long without a film - and we have - we could live longer, perhaps forever without one. Certainly blind people who have read the book in braile are doing nicely without Mr. Jackson's version, thank you.

But, to get back to the question under debate, you are mistaking weakness of character with physical weakness. Yes, Frodo takes the Ring implying strength of character, but Jackson is weakening him far too fast physically for him to make credible the last haul through Mordor. Remember, Frodo still has to encounter Shelob whose wound will inflict an even further physical weakening and he must also undergo capture and torture by the orcs - if that is in fact in the last film. Then there is the long march through Mordor in which he suffers hunger, thirst, exhaustion and the torment of the Ring.

I said of the business at the Prancing Pony when Frodo receives the frightening vision of the Burning Eye, that it was far too early for the Ring to be exhibiting any such demonstrations of power. Remember, Bilbo used it for years. Don't tell me every time he put it on he saw that! In the book, although Frodo has been affected by the power of the Ring, his real "deterioration" begins when he enters the Morgul Vale and it continues until Mount Doom. However, he still possesses enough strength that his fall to the Ring at the climax is usually a surprise to first-time readers.

However, by the time Mr. Jackson gets his Frodo to Sammath Naur, he's going to have to perform yet another "resurrection".

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
You know, I get a bit of a pain when those who believe that everything Mr. Jackson does is "just fine, thank you" (no matter how idiotic it is) constantly attempt to bolster their argument by saying, "and if he hadn't done "that" (whatever it is), you wouldn't have had a film! So there!!" To begin with, who cares? If we have lived this long without a film - and we have - we could live longer, perhaps forever without one. Certainly blind people who have read the book in braile are doing nicely without Mr. Jackson's version, thank you.

Click to expand...

Well, I for one would care - a lot. I really enjoy these movies and I am grateful that I have the chance to see them. Would you want to deny me that opportunity?
A lot of people have lived happily without having had the chance to read Tolkien's books. Does that mean that they might as well never have been written?
Let me tell you a little secret: you don't actually have to go and see PJ's films if you don't like them. It would save you a bit of money and a lot of agony.

Also, I have not seen that many people who believe that everything that PJ does is just fine. I certainly have a few issues with TTT, the main one being the Aragorn-over-the-cliff-and-apparently-dying scene. I could well have done without it because I don't think the movie would have been very different if that entire thing had been cut (I am not against the warg attack itself, I thought that was actually pretty cool).

But the Faramir thing, now that I have thought a lot more about it, is to me at least really not a big deal anymore.

Finally, I would like to suggest that those who have such vehement objections to certain changes could spend a bit of time thinking about how they would have handled the issues differently if they had been the ones making a movie of LotR. I am really interested in alternatives to PJ's decisions. Obviously, such alternatives need to be realistic and cinematographically plausible.

But, to get back to the question under debate, you are mistaking weakness of character with physical weakness. Yes, Frodo takes the Ring implying strength of character, but Jackson is weakening him far too fast physically for him to make credible the last haul through Mordor. Remember, Frodo still has to encounter Shelob whose wound will inflict an even further physical weakening and he must also undergo capture and torture by the orcs - if that is in fact in the last film. Then there is the long march through Mordor in which he suffers hunger, thirst, exhaustion and the torment of the Ring.

Click to expand...

I think I'd rather wait until I have seen the actual RotK film before commenting on it one way or another.

I said of the business at the Prancing Pony when Frodo receives the frightening vision of the Burning Eye, that it was far too early for the Ring to be exhibiting any such demonstrations of power. Remember, Bilbo used it for years. Don't tell me every time he put it on he saw that!

Click to expand...

It is called cinema.
Also, the Ring affects different people in different ways. I can see how it may have had a greater effect on Frodo, especially because he knows what it is, whereas Bilbo never did.

In the book, although Frodo has been affected by the power of the Ring, his real "deterioration" begins when he enters the Morgul Vale and it continues until Mount Doom. However, he still possesses enough strength that his fall to the Ring at the climax is usually a surprise to first-time readers.

Click to expand...

I think it is a gradual process in the book as well, starting in the Emyn Muil. Your interpretation is different. That is fine, there is nothing wrong with different people having different interpretations, whether it is me, you or PJ. Maybe you could have liked the film a bit more if PJ had bothered to consult you during the shooting?

However, by the time Mr. Jackson gets his Frodo to Sammath Naur, he's going to have to perform yet another "resurrection".

Click to expand...

I don't hope so. But I prefer to wait until I have seen that film before pouring scorn on it.

fG

No one has said that the films are "no good". However, attempting to "shut down" criticism, debate and discussion by saying that we "wouldn't have had a film otherwise", or "why don't you stay home" shows nothing more than a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do even to the point of declaring his deviations "superior" to the book upon which is it based.

What I wish to know is this: do those who espouse this odd position mean that we wouldn't have had a successful film without Mr. Jackson's particular revisions or, rather, that we wouldn't have had a successful film if Professor Tolkien's story had been more faithfully followed?

And please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to why you believe your particular position so that at least I, too, can "see the light"?

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No one has said that the films are "no good". However, attempting to "shut down" criticism, debate and discussion by saying that we "wouldn't have had a film otherwise", or "why don't you stay home" shows nothing more than a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do even to the point of declaring his deviations "superior" to the book upon which is it based.

Click to expand...

1. I am not at all trying to shut down the debate. I do, however, feel the need to point out that criticising should be a balancing act, weighing the ideal against the possible. My view is that some here don't show sufficient appreciation of this dichotomy. Hence my suggestion that the critics propose alternatives for those things in the films they don't like. I think that would be fair to PJ, the film makers and anyone here who has not yet seen the movie.

2. I would appreciate if you could try and respond to what I actually write, and not your interpretation of my thoughts. Nowhere in my posts have I shown 'a total acceptance of whatever Mr. Jackson chooses to do'.

3. I don't think I have declared that his deviations are superior, but I do feel that changes are sometimes, if not often, required when transposing a story from book to film. I try to judge his changes against more criteria than just faithfulness to the written text - we must also consider the challenge to produce an effective film.

What I wish to know is this: do those who espouse this odd position mean that we wouldn't have had a successful film without Mr. Jackson's particular revisions or, rather, that we wouldn't have had a successful film if Professor Tolkien's story had been more faithfully followed?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I do believe though that PJ has his reasons for making the changes, that they were carefully considered, and I think that knowing, or at the very least exploring, these reasons may help in forming a considered opinion as to their need and effectiveness (or lack thereof). I do think that literally following Tolkiens text would not result in a watcheable movie, quite apart from the fact that it would never be an economic proposition.

And please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to why you believe your particular position so that at least I, too, can "see the light"?

Click to expand...

I hope the above helps. We can always discuss individual changes in more detail. The discussion in this thread has certainly helped me in forming an opinion on the Faramir changes. Straight after my first viewing I was quite upset about them, but by now I have come to realise that they are nowhere as damaging and far-fetched as I initially thought. In fact my re-evaluation has benefited from your contributions, which helped me in understanding the various issues involved, and I want to thank you for that. I still need to see the next film to be able to come to a final conclusion on their merit.

fG

You see, my problem is that when Mr. Jackson began his (at the time very slight) deviations in FOTR, we were told that they were being done for reasons of time and budget constraints. That made sense, but when some of his changes did not seem to be necessary for either reason and did apparently change the characters (seldom for the better, I might add), there were those of us who wondered why if no time was saved by the change, Mr. Jackson just didn't stick with the original theme.

Well, of course, as we have come to know, time and budget reasons obviously were not the reasons for many of these changes, especially in TTT where whole invented plot lines and scenes are added. Indeed, so grievous are the changes in TTT, that FOTR appears to be an almost word-for-word rendering of the book! One can only wait in dire anticipation of what TTT means for ROTK! And my question remains, WHY? If time and money were not the reasons - and obviously they weren't, what part of Tolkien's story did Mr. Jackson think worthy of translation to film?

I am confused, really I am. If you love the story, its moral and literary theme and its characters, if you think it's the best thing that has ever been written, why would you go off on such incredibly useless and, frankly, dramatically inferior "plot lines"? If you don't trust your source, why use it in the first place? Yes, edit. You have to. Yes, consolidate and shorten when and if necessary. But don't change the meaning of the story! and that is what has happened even if the Ring does go into the Fire and Aragorn is crowned and he and Arwen marry. LOTR is far more than such narrowly defined plot themes but apparently, Mr. Jackson either can't see that - or doesn't want to.

Mrs. Maggot, I want to reply to your post in some detail, but I think it is better if I do that in a new thread on the 'Tolkien's LotR versus Peter Jackson's LotR' forum instead of here. Please give me a bit of time to get my thoughts together.

fG

In some of the posts I have read, people have said that when Frodo reveals the ring to the Nazgul, that Sauron will simply assume that the ring is on the way to Minas Tirith. I agree that this is a logical conclusion to draw from this scene. However, what has been worrying me is that this will lead to other annoying plot changes.

If Pippin now looks into the palantier, what is Sauron going to think? In the book he assumes Saruman has captured the ring-bearing hobbit and is torturing him by exposing him to Sauron, thus he hastily dispatches a Nazgul to capture him and doesn't bother probing deeply into his mind. But now in the film he will no longer assume that this hobbit is the ring-bearer and will not release him quite so quickly and will spend some time reading his mind and discover all of Gandalf's plans (possibly). One way around this possible plot hole would be not to include the palantier scene in RotK but then you are left with there being no real reason for Gandalf to take Pippen to Minas Tirith.

This is why I don’t understand the changes PJ has made to story, surely by altering the plot in this way he’s creating more problems for himself and in effect now has to rewrite more aspects of Tolkien’s masterpiece.

Originally posted by KingOfAngmar


If Pippin now looks into the palantier, what is Sauron going to think?

Click to expand...

I don't think you'll have to worry about that! If Jackson tries to put in all the stuff he has left out, he'll need another two movies especially if he continues to put in his own plot elements already so well known on this forum. No, I don't think we're going to have the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman (at least not as it was in the book), nor Pippin's experiment with the palantir - and all that stems from that (or at least as they appear in the book). Yes, there will be a confrontation between the wizards, but certainly not the "intellectual" one Tolkien presented. No doubt it will be another "shoot-em-up" such as we have been treated to so far in the films. Intellectual debate apparently is not a Jackson film strongpoint.

What this means for the third film is not clear, but somehow at the very least, Mr. Jackson will have to sufficiently get "back on track" to have the large plot elements in place at the end - or it will have all been for nothing.

Yes, I have a feeling that the confrontation scene will be cut short but, as I said, with no palantier what reason would Gandalf have for taking Pippin to Gondor? Hopefully Merry and Pippin won't stay together as that would destroy, or at least interfere, with their development into the warriors of Rohan and Gondor. I suppose it's not too important with respect to the grand scheme of things but it would give them both their much needed character growth.

Originally posted by KingOfAngmar
Yes, I have a feeling that the confrontation scene will be cut short but, as I said, with no palantier what reason would Gandalf have for taking Pippin to Gondor? Hopefully Merry and Pippin won't stay together as that would destroy, or at least interfere, with their development into the warriors of Rohan and Gondor. I suppose it's not too important with respect to the grand scheme of things but it would give them both their much needed character growth.

Click to expand...

I don't know, in TTT I got the very sneaking suspicion that Mr. Jackson - having found comic relief in Gimli - is losing interest in the two hobbits. They were very poorly developed in the TTT and almost seemed to be an "excuse" for having the cg Ents. I am probably wrong, but I do not see the Director spending much more time on them in the last film.

I think Merry and Pippin are poorly developed in the TTT book as well. Apart from their initial escape they are quite passive, sitting around doing nothing whilst the Ents are making up their mind, and having a meal and a smoke at the end. In fact, they have a greater impact on the course of events in the film than in the book!

Critisising PJ for downplaying the two hobbits role isn't fair when he does in fact the opposite.

fG