Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Sheeana]

Bleh. This is exactly why it's not even worth bothering arguing with BB AKA Grima. Ah, just chuck him out on the spike, will ya?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
As a side-note, you completely evaded my question, yet again.

Guess you'll have to state it again. I couldn't find it.

A couple of observations about the recent posts:

1. Don't automatically assume I'm addressing you (whoever you are) unless I mention you directly.

2. Don't get my style confused with my message. 99% of the time, I'm writing this stuff with a huge smile on my face. If you get upset with a perceived "holier than thou" attitude on my part, then maybe you can begin to understand how the rest of us who belong to the illiterate, movie-going masses feel when some uppity Tolkien book purist turns up his nose at our beloved films.

3. Believe it or not, I like you Purists and others like GW who have different opinions from me. If I didn't I wouldn't hang around here. Differing opinions are what make these threads interesting to read. I would rather be in a discussion forum with people who challenge me on my POV than to be posting in a boring (although obviously wise and enlightened ) place where everyone views things the same way I do.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel
.... eh... this is the old guy King Theoden, right?

(Before any of you post a response: I know who King Theoden is!)

The sexy mature guy, yeah!

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Phew! A relief. I looked back on my response, eh, it was, eh, a bit 'extreme' even for me. I got a little, errrr... out of control, when I read what he had written.
And 'expressiveness'... yes, good word for it.

And old, since he had a grown son. But yes... noble.

Grown children! Big deal! Several mooter's have them! That's not old! You're just young!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The question was: Why do you feel it so important that everyone agrees with you about Jackson's adaptation? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it, and I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that not everyone feels the same way to the point that you have to say something to the effect of "those who disagree about Jackson obviously do not know anything about what the Lord of the Rings was all about."?

Re: Theoden: He was 60-61 when we met him (amazing, from the time Gandalf walks into the Halls of Edoras, it's a mere 23 days until the Ring is destroyed), depending on when he was born.

[Wayfarer]

*ahem*

Frodo:

Actually, Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo.

In The Books:
Frodo spends months, almost a year, planning to leave the Shire, working out the smallest details, hardening his resolve to leave everything behind and make a journey from which he was not sure he would return. He takes his friends along, planning to abandon them in Crickethollow

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo spends perhaps five minutes packing, before he and Sam are literally sent off by Gandalf. There is no planning or resolve, and very little effort on his part.

In The Books:
Again, Frodo had planned out his journy from the shire. He knew where he was going, and how he was going to get there. When a horseman came up the path behind them, he cheerfully suggested that they should get off the road. When the Black Riders begin hounding him he immediately showed initiative by taking them on a 'short cut' cross country.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo was, as previously stated, merely shooed out the door. Rather than take his friends with him, he runs into Merry and Pippen by accident. When a black rider comes along the path, he becomes progressively more panicked until he screams at the others to get off the road. When it becomes clear that the black riders are following him, he is unable to face Merry, who broaches the subject. As they are leaving the shire, he demonstrates no initiative, and needs to be told that they should take the ferry.

In The Books:
Frodo agrees to go into the Old Forest, and sings a song to ward off the gloom. Then, he and sam try to rescue merry and pippin from the Willow, until Bombadil comes along.
After leaving bombadil, and a brief period while frodo takes them back to say goodbye to goldberry, the hobbits become seperated and captured. Nevertheless, Frodo shows enough courage to attack the wight and save his friends, though he'd rather run. Then he calls bombadil and they are rescued.

In Jackson's Films:
Entire Sequence was Cut

In The Books:
On weathertop, Frodo draws his sword and attacks the Witch-King, uttering the name of Elbereth and turning a blow which would have stricken his heart into one which merely struck his shoulder.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo draws his sword, allright, then drops it and falls on his butt, and then offers the ring to the wraith for a moment before taking it back and getting stabbed in the shoulder for some reason.

In The Books:
Frodo endures the wound for two weeks, and manages to walk most of the way to rivendell under his own power.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is unable to walk and is near death later that same night (or so it is implied).

In The Books:
Glorfindel sets Frodo on his own horse, with orders to flee if they are attacked. Nevertheless, Frodo is hesitent to abandon his friends in danger, so Glorfindel is forced to have the horse flee across the fords on its own. Frodo passes within feet of the nazgul, but manages to reach the ford. Upon crossing, he turns, draws his sword, and defies the assembled nine- "By elbereth and luthien the fair, you shall have neither the ring nor me!" In answer, the witch king renders him mute, breaks his sword, and knocks him from his horse. He lies unconscious and barely sees the nazgul as they are swept away.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is carried, half conscious, by Arwen, who fights through to the fords where she turns, draws her sword, and defies the assembled nine- "if you want him, come and claim him". The witch king replies by trying to cross the fords, while arwen begins chanting a spell. The nazgul continue anyway, and are swept away, but frodo is too busy fainting/trying to die, and Arwen has to use elven magic to revive him.

AND THATS JUST IN BOOK I, PEOPLE!!!

I challenge BlackBreathalizer, no I DEFY him, or ANY OF YOU to answer the following three questions:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
The question was: Why do you feel it so important that everyone agrees with you about Jackson's adaptation?

You mistake the passion I have for my POV with the need to "convert" everyone. I playfully talk about reeducating Purists but my positions and approaches are not much different from many of you with opposing viewpoints. You just notice mine more because you happen to disagree with me.

I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film. Can Tolkien films be made with a more macho Frodo at the beginning third of FOTR? Yeah. Can the Old Forest and Tom be put in? You bet. Would that guarantee a successful film OR a successful adaptation? Absolutely not.

Adapting a long story to film is always going to be about a screenwriter/director deciding what ingredients -- and in what amounts -- to put into the stew. If you expect the cook to use ALL of the ingredients in exactly the same quantities, you're being horribly niave and unrealistic. Telling a compelling story through film is very different from telling it in a book.

An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.

One of the underlying themes of Tolkien's books is religion: the power of faith and the belief in God. Sadly, most modern filmmakers have balked at any overtly religious messages in their films. To Peter Jackson's credit, he brought Tolkien's religious themes to his films whatever he felt personally (and I have no idea how he feels.)

PJ examined that section of the book and asked the same questions we've been grappling with: "why the hell did Aragorn leave Frodo and go after Merry & Pippin?" PJ believed Tolkien's own answer to that question for Aragorn was: Frodo's fate was no longer in his hands. Mrs. Maggott and others may disagree with that assessment, but my point is that Peter Jackson's decision was just as grounded in Tolkien as any alternative approach you book purists would have suggested.

[Wayfarer]

I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film.

<soapbox/>

I submit for everyone on this forum: Have I, or have I not, argued above that that (and I quote myself) "Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo."

Now, I ask of you all, Is objecting to this being 'caught up in the details'?
I don't think so. Because when such broad, sweeping, and generalized changes are made, they are obviously more than 'specific instances'.

I must note finally that BB has answered exactly none of my three questions. Is this because he cannot give an answer that will not weaken his stated position? You be the judge but, alas, only he can tell.

With that, I must challenge again:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

Or, in a more general form, of all the changes made:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes weaken or strengthen the story?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme?

I think you will find that, in far to many cases, the answer is a resounding no. And I think you will agree that, when an overwhelming majority of them is unnescessary, harmful, and in violent opposition to tolkien, the films as a whole can be no better.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.

Wow. You saw religion there? I saw only logical necessity. Frodo needed to continue alone, or else the members of the Fellowship would be destroyed by the temptation to take the Ring. This is what Aragorn realized, both in the movie and in the book, only in the movie he saw it before Frodo went, and in the book it happened afterwards. This opens for one of the most siginificant moments in the movie, when Aragorn denies the Ring and lets Frodo go, fulfilling Arwen's foretelling in Rivendell: "You will face the same evil, and you will defeat it".

[Lizra]

Being non religious , I (of course) see mostly destiny there. The lines that 'echo' for me (from the film) are Gandalf to Frodo...You were meant to have the ring, and that is encouraging, and ....there are other forces at work besides evil (or what ever he says to that effect, butcher job here! ) Also Galadriel to Frodo....If you do not find a way, no one will. When Aragron closes Frodo's hand around the ring, I just assume....His destiny has enabled him to rise above "the desire", unlike Isilder and Boromir, (Faramir has 'reluctantly' fallen in line with Aragorn also!)Aragorn's wisdom enables him to go beyond "normal" Ranger worries, and trust to fate that Frodo was selected and will find a way.....because there are forces other than evil (and hopefully stronger than evil, though this is not apparent to the weak) at work. I have now revealed myself as a plot "Simpleton" perhaps, but it works for me!

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Artanis
Wow. You saw religion there? I saw only logical necessity.

But some people have argued (about both the book and the film versions) that the most logical course of action would have been for Aragorn to follow Frodo. To address this perception, Jackson heightened the lure of the ring to make it easier for a film audience to accept Aragorn's decision. But even then, some posters like Mrs Maggott still haven't accepted it. In a nutshell, their feelings are that the risk of a lone hobbit going off alone was far greater than the risk of Aragorn being seduced by the ring the same way Boromir was. So, from their POV, Aragorn's decision was illogical.

Which brings us to Lizra's examples from the film. Jackson made a point of bringing up God/Destiny/Fate earlier in the movie with some wonderful scenes. So when Aragorn says, "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands," it becomes a very natural continuation of the religious overtones of the film. We are led to believe that Aragorn's decision wasn't just based on logic alone but on a feeling that Frodo going off without him was "meant to be" just as Frodo having the ring was "meant to be."

[Artanis]

All right, I see your point. The 'religious' tones is of course present in the books and the movies. Still, I think the main reason behind Aragorn's choice was his own temptation of the Ring. It is Frodo's "Can you protect me from yourself?" that makes him realize that Frodo is doing the right thing, and Aragorn's trust (faith if you wish) in divine powers serves only as a comfort and a support of his decision, after it is made. "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" is to me the consequence of Aragorn's choice to let him go.

Lizra, I don't believe it's destiny that enables Aragorn to resist the Ring, I think it's his bloodline that helps him to recognize evil and resist it, and taking the right decisions. The inheritance from the Elves and from Melian. This is of course not in the movie, but I bring it with me from the books, I can't help it.

[Lizra]

Yes, I guess I'm sure I'm muddling his bloodline and destiny together. Of course, "the same blood flows in his veins (Isilder) that flows in mine." (Aragorn) so there must be more than the blood. Same problem with Boromir and Faramir, same blood, different choices. Probably the "good" training they have recieved from Gandalf!

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Lizra
Yes, I guess I'm sure I'm muddling his bloodline and destiny together. Of course, "the same blood flows in his veins (Isilder) that flows in mine." (Aragorn) so there must be more than the blood.

Aragorn's friendship with Gandalf as you say, and perhaps the fact that he was brought up in Rivendell. Besides, he had the opportunity to learn from Isildur's mistake.

Same problem with Boromir and Faramir, same blood, different choices.

This is what Gandalf says about Denethor in the book:

He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best.

Faramir took interest in the lore of his people, Boromir did not. (Bringing in the book again. I know, I'm irredeemable )

[Black Breathalizer]

TV Announcer: (whispering) Hello and welcome to CourtTV. We're here in the county courtroom, site of The Trial of Peter Jackson...Wayfarer, the district attorney of Entmoot County is about to question Jackson's superstar defense attorney, Black Breathalizer...let's listen in:

******************

Wayfarer: I submit for everyone on this countroom: Have I, or have I not, argued above that that (and I quote myself) "Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo."

(There are nods of agreement from the courtroom audience as Wayfarer pauses for dramatic effect as he looks into the faces of the jury.)

Wayfarer: Now, I ask of you all, is objecting to this being 'caught up in the details'? I don't think so. Because when such broad, sweeping, and generalized changes are made, they are obviously more than 'specific instances'.

I must note finally that Jackson's defense attorney, BB, has NOT answered my three questions. Is this because he cannot give an answer that will not weaken his stated position? You be the judge but, alas, only he can tell. With that, I must challenge again...

(Wayfarer approaches the witness stand where a bored-looking chap wearing a Ringwraith hood and cloak which partially hide his distinguished features sits twiddling his fingers waiting for Wayfarer to bring his pompous speech to a conclusion.)

Wayfarer: Mr. Breathalizer, are these changes regarding Frodo necessary for the book to work on film?

BB: Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word. There are multiple ways that a screenwriter could have written Frodo's character. It's pure conjecture whether the strict interpretation you preferred would have made the films a better adaptation or as critically successful and popular as Jackson's choices. It's awfully hard to argue with PJ's results. In addition to showing Frodo's courage, Jackson was challenged to create the "everyman" quality of the character from the book. IMHO, he did a great job of generating empathy from the audience.

Wayfarer: Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?

BB: What changes do you mean?

Wayfarer: You know, the changes from the book.

BB: Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?

Wayfarer: ha ha ha...just answer the question.

BB: No, I do NOT agree that these changes from the book weaken the character of Frodo Baggins. Is Frodo protrayed exactly like the book? No. But let's remember that in addition to creating the everyman quality of Frodo from the books, Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.

BB: The reality of the books worked. Would the reality of some of the book's scenes translated to film have worked as well? That's an open debate. If I had been unfamiliar with the book, what would I have been thinking in the audience when little Frodo ran off with that big horse all by himself? Would I have thought, "gee, how brave and courageous he is?" OR would I have thought, "how in the world is he staying on that horse?" "how does he know where the heck he's going?" "how is Frodo able to guide that horse when he's so badly wounded?" "Why are the others allowing a critically wounded Frodo to ride off alone?" Thanks to Jackson's treatment of the character, by the end of the first film, Frodo came off both BELIEVABLE and COURAGEOUS.

Wayfarer: Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

BB: Of course. There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.

*************

TV Announcer: (breaking in) Wow...another BRILLIANT defense by BB. This reporter was certainly impressed. It looks like an uphill battle for the Purists at this point. And now a word from our sponsor...

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
EXACTLY, and THAT is the problem. GW picked out a revised scene he hated from the first third of the first film and proceeded to damn PJ's entire portrayal of the character based on it rather than SEEING HOW JACKSON DEVELOPS THE CHARACTER during the course of the film!!! This is a FILM. Film's have character arcs!!! By the end of the film, Jackson's Frodo IS the book's Frodo, he simply took a professional screenwriter's approach versus a novelist's approach to getting there.

But how is it necessary to have Frodo be so weak from the start? And why would the Council entrust him with the Ring if he is so weak to the devices of the Enemy? *coughofferingupRingstoNazgulcough*

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Huh?!??! What do you mean it wasn't there?!?!?! The "can you protect me from yourself?" IS the temptation of Aragorn. We watch Aragorn stare at the ring...we hear the ring calling out to him...we see him reach out for the ring...and close Frodo's fingers around it. What do you call that?

I call it part of something that was from hours earlier in the movie and I- not you, now, just me- had completely forgotten about.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July. Now let's see YOUR reality, Elf Girl.

Plenty of violent disgusting horror movies sell well. Does that make them 'good'? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I did not enjoy those movies. As for selling well, again, that relates to how well the masses enjoyed them. As for being a good adaptation, what on earth does money have to do with that? Even you must admit that the majority of the audience has not read Tolkien. They enjoy (or do not enjoy) the movies for what they are. Most Tolkien fans adoring them- I don't know. I don't adore them.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Elf Girl: Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

BB: Yep.

*gasp* *jaw drops* I'm shocked. O do, do tell me what.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1. Don't automatically assume I'm addressing you (whoever you are) unless I mention you directly.

Will keep in mind.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
2. Don't get my style confused with my message. 99% of the time, I'm writing this stuff with a huge smile on my face. If you get upset with a perceived "holier than thou" attitude on my part, then maybe you can begin to understand how the rest of us who belong to the illiterate, movie-going masses feel when some uppity Tolkien book purist turns up his nose at our beloved films.

If you have a smile on your face, please share it with a smilie face as suggested in the Entmoot rules.

And Eru! Please supply a quote from anyone on this thread beside yourself saying that non-purists are 'illiterate, movie-going masses'.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
3. Believe it or not, I like you Purists and others like GW who have different opinions from me. If I didn't I wouldn't hang around here. Differing opinions are what make these threads interesting to read. I would rather be in a discussion forum with people who challenge me on my POV than to be posting in a boring (although obviously wise and enlightened ) place where everyone views things the same way I do.

Glad to hear it. Again, please post your definition of 'purist', since you think it's an insult.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You mistake the passion I have for my POV with the need to "convert" everyone. I playfully talk about reeducating Purists but my positions and approaches are not much different from many of you with opposing viewpoints. You just notice mine more because you happen to disagree with me.

If you are being, 'playful', again please use smiley face. Very hard to tell when you talk about some of us as being the scum of the earth or something similar.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film. Can Tolkien films be made with a more macho Frodo at the beginning third of FOTR? Yeah. Can the Old Forest and Tom be put in? You bet. Would that guarantee a successful film OR a successful adaptation? Absolutely not.

Excuse me. 'Specific deviations'. Tell me a way, beside citing specific incidents, that we can determine a character's character in the movies.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Adapting a long story to film is always going to be about a screenwriter/director deciding what ingredients -- and in what amounts -- to put into the stew. If you expect the cook to use ALL of the ingredients in exactly the same quantities, you're being horribly niave and unrealistic. Telling a compelling story through film is very different from telling it in a book.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.

I'm sorry, but I did not understand that. So Aragorn let Frodo go off alone (he didn't know about Sam) because he thought, 'Well, God will watch over them.'

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One of the underlying themes of Tolkien's books is religion: the power of faith and the belief in God. Sadly, most modern filmmakers have balked at any overtly religious messages in their films. To Peter Jackson's credit, he brought Tolkien's religious themes to his films whatever he felt personally (and I have no idea how he feels.)

The closest to religion I can see in the books is 'Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, so you were meant to have it. And that is an encougaging thought.' (Not sure if that's quite right, don't have my books on hand.)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ examined that section of the book and asked the same questions we've been grappling with: "why the hell did Aragorn leave Frodo and go after Merry & Pippin?" PJ believed Tolkien's own answer to that question for Aragorn was: Frodo's fate was no longer in his hands. Mrs. Maggott and others may disagree with that assessment, but my point is that Peter Jackson's decision was just as grounded in Tolkien as any alternative approach you book purists would have suggested.

Aha! Finally! PJ believed. Which does not make that the ultimate truth. My answer to that question is 'Cuz he didn't know he was going.'

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But some people have argued (about both the book and the film versions) that the most logical course of action would have been for Aragorn to follow Frodo. To address this perception, Jackson heightened the lure of the ring to make it easier for a film audience to accept Aragorn's decision. But even then, some posters like Mrs Maggott still haven't accepted it. In a nutshell, their feelings are that the risk of a lone hobbit going off alone was far greater than the risk of Aragorn being seduced by the ring the same way Boromir was. So, from their POV, Aragorn's decision was illogical.

But again, what's wrong with him not knowing which hobbits are which? I think it's the other way around: PJ wanted Aragorn seduced by the Ring, so he made those episodes to show it.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Which brings us to Lizra's examples from the film. Jackson made a point of bringing up God/Destiny/Fate earlier in the movie with some wonderful scenes. So when Aragorn says, "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands," it becomes a very natural continuation of the religious overtones of the film. We are led to believe that Aragorn's decision wasn't just based on logic alone but on a feeling that Frodo going off without him was "meant to be" just as Frodo having the ring was "meant to be."

Again, 'I'll let him go off alone, because God will watch over him.'

[Elf Girl]

And now I come to your latest post, BB. That 'cute' little 'court' thing, where you pasted stupid labels on our beloved insufferable Wayfarer. Shame!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word. There are multiple ways that a screenwriter could have written Frodo's character. It's pure conjecture whether the strict interpretation you preferred would have made the films a better adaptation or as critically successful and popular as Jackson's choices. It's awfully hard to argue with PJ's results. In addition to showing Frodo's courage, Jackson was challenged to create the "everyman" quality of the character from the book. IMHO, he did a great job of generating empathy from the audience.

So. A weak hero getting kicked out the door by a wizard works better then a noble-but-not-sure-of-own-ability one. And the weak one is definitely more likely to be permitted to bear the Ring.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?

Specific instances are the only way to determine what a movie character's overall character is. Just add them up, and you've got it.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
No, I do NOT agree that these changes from the book weaken the character of Frodo Baggins. Is Frodo protrayed exactly like the book? No. But let's remember that in addition to creating the everyman quality of Frodo from the books, Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.

Did he need to 'create the everyman quality'? I think the instances from the book portray it rather well. And what instances from the book need to be made more 'real'? Tolkien's characters are pretty well-drawn, don't you think?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The reality of the books worked. Would the reality of some of the book's scenes translated to film have worked as well? That's an open debate.

It is indeed. Thank you for admitting it. However, it is also open debate whether the reality of the books worked.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If I had been unfamiliar with the book, what would I have been thinking in the audience when little Frodo ran off with that big horse all by himself? Would I have thought, "gee, how brave and courageous he is?" OR would I have thought, "how in the world is he staying on that horse?" "how does he know where the heck he's going?" "how is Frodo able to guide that horse when he's so badly wounded?" "Why are the others allowing a critically wounded Frodo to ride off alone?"

You would have thought 'How in the world is he staying on that horse?' instead of 'Gee, how brave and courageous he is,' for the Ford scene, but you thought, 'Look at how Aragorn trusts the will of God,' as opposed to 'Why the heck is he letting Frodo go off alone?' in that little inserted scene?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Thanks to Jackson's treatment of the character, by the end of the first film, Frodo came off both BELIEVABLE and COURAGEOUS.

Please enlighten me as to how being carried across a river by a hot Xena elf babe is couragous.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Wayfarer: Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

BB: There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.

So the fact that Frodo does not comply seems odd to me, he being the star.

(Sorry about the bolding, I can't make it go away. I do not mean any special emphasis about it.)