Will the films change fans' relationship with the books?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you visualize Book Frodo differently than the film version, that's your prerogative. But to state they are "so completely different" is complete hogwash and is certainly not supported by any real comparison between the two. If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

It's not trash, it's just an opinion that's different from yours.

But I personally agree with The Gaffer and Artanis: in my opinion movie-Frodo is different in some aspects from book-Frodo.

[IronParrot]

Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton.

Yeah, but I've always seen him as a very youthful 50, given that hobbit ages are inflated compared to humans anyway, and also because of the influence of the Ring. That's why it's kind of fitting, to me, that Frodo visually appears as being in the same age range as Pippin, who's the token tweenager of the hobbit crew.

Of course, that's a different debate entirely. I guess the real question being posed here is whether or not the portrayal of Frodo in the films has necessarily changed how you feel about Frodo as a character when you go back to the book and read it.

For those of us who thought Frodo in the film was a pretty good representation of how we always saw him, I don't think our relationships with his characterization in the book is going to be affected all that much. I remember how the first time I came out of FOTR, still working out what I just saw and in a great deal of shock (many qualms and questions still remained to be settled by the second viewing), I was very impressed by Elijah Wood's performance in particular.

How close the film was to the book is in itself a redundant debate with no solid answers either way. Some of today's top Tolkien scholars can be seen on completely opposite sides of the issue. It's really a matter of how we recognize or justify the similarities and differences on a personal level - and that's where our personal relationships to the book and films, as individuals, becomes key.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Artanis
Talking about the appearance of Frodo, I too think they're different. When I read the book I imagine Frodo as looking much older than he does in the movie. In the book he's 50 years old when he sets out from Hobbiton.

With all due respect, the fact that you envision Frodo as a 50 year old doesn't mean that Tolkien himself envisoned him that way. Frankly, the facts would point to Peter Jackson's Frodo being much closer to Tolkien's true vision than your own.

You need to remember that a hobbits lifespan is much longer than ours and that a hobbit didn't "come of age" until he was 33 instead of the age 18 that we generally associate with adulthood. Given this fact, its logical to assume that a "Fiftysomething" Frodo would look twentysomething.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
With all due respect, the fact that you envision Frodo as a 50 year old doesn't mean that Tolkien himself envisoned him that way. Frankly, the facts would point to Peter Jackson's Frodo being much closer to Tolkien's true vision than your own.

Well, I'm not afraid to say that my visions about the characters and the scenery in the book may be different from what Tolkien himself envisioned. Isn't that what is so good about a book versus a movie? The ability to create our own pictures in our heads. Anyway it is no big deal, personally I do not care so much about the looks of the characters when I read a book. Their personalities and their reasons for their actions, and how they feel, are much more important.

You need to remember that a hobbits lifespan is much longer than ours and that a hobbit didn't "come of age" until he was 33 instead of the age 18 that we generally associate with adulthood. Given this fact, its logical to assume that a "Fiftysomething" Frodo would look twentysomething.

I don't see it like that. Hobbits do not live that much longer than us. About 100 years against our 80-85. Which would make 50 years corresponding to 40 in our lifespan, if you like. Young Elijah looks exactly as old as he is, about 20, and I think it's a bit pity for the movie, especially since Pippin, Sam and Merry all seem older than him, which they should not be according to the book (I'm talking entirely about apperance now, not their charaters). This is just one of many reasons why I fail to map the movie story onto the book story in a successful way, that would work for me personally. I guess you will call me some kind of purist (doesn't remember all the categories of purist right now, I'm sure you'll find one fitting for me ). But in this way, at least my relationship with the book remains how it has always been, which I think was the answer to your original question.

And about Hobbits coming of age at 33 I interpret more as a cultural difference rather than a result of their physical development. If you think of it, most people in our culture don't start their lives as 'adults' before they're 30-something, I mean settling down with marriage and children and taking on responsibility, and I guess this is what happens to a Hobbit when he/she is 33, it is farewell to the "irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three".

[IronParrot]

I'm not sure about that. I think in terms of hobbit ages, both the physical and mental lifespans are very clearly inflated compared to ours. The concept of their irresponsible "tweens" is very clearly a take on our world's teens, eleventy-one seems to be a particular marker like our ninety or one hundred, and the Old Took's one hundred and thirty is a milestone in itself.

And appearance-wise, you have to note that the effect of the Ring was that Frodo looked very much at fifty as he did at thirty-three - hence why the younger hobbits would have caught up to him in how old they looked.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you are going to throw around such trash, then at least attempt to show you know what you're talking about.

You should show more respect to your elders and betters.

Film Frodo: is a teenager, has a look of terror on his face all the time, runs away from fights (Moria), doesn't defy the Nazgul (Fords), OFFERS THE ******* RING TO THE NAZGUL FOR ****'S SAKE (Osgiliath), is completely taken in by Smeagol, is already completely under the Ring's control

Book Frodo: is a mature adult (your hogwash about lifespans notwithstanding), takes the lead, communicates with Sam, only loses the plot once (MInas Morgul), defies the Nazgul, thinks carefully about what to do next, etc etc.

As far as appearance goes, EW certainly looks the part. This isn't about appearance though.

[IronParrot]

... and the thread spirals out of control...

But seriously, guys. I realize the importance of debating the characterization of Frodo in the film, but let's keep this thread from veering into a "was the film faithful" slugfest. We have several of those already that I wouldn't mind you bringing back up to the top.

(And I'll gladly join you there.)

[The Gaffer]

Happy to oblige; that would be why I only mentioned it in passing before. On reflection, though, I think it's very relevant to this question.

Frodo is the principal character through which we relate to the story (in the books). Particularly in FOTR, nothing happens that we don't see through his eyes. One of the many things that is great about the book is that the author gradually expands this perspective throughout TTT and ROTK, then draws it back in again at the end.

By necessity, films have to give a broader perspective. So, to take the point further, by changing Frodo's role and character, and adopting a broader perspective, the film changes how we relate to the story from the outset. We don't gradually discover the plot in the same way that Frodo does.

The role of Aragorn would be a good example of that: in the film, it's clear from early on that he's "heir to the throne of Gondor" (thanks, Legolas). In the book, this only becomes apparent in TTT, and the full significance doesn't really sink in until ROTK.

My guess is that this difference would make the viewer experience the story as something which happens to include hobbits, rather than the reader's experience of something which is experienced by hobbits.

BTW, I think the films are great too. Just because there are differences in how characters and story are played out doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying "book rules, film sucks". Some things about the film are better, IMHO.

[IronParrot]

It's funny that you bring up the notion of the characters "discovering" the plot. The first time I watched FOTR, one of the most major things I noticed was that it's not until the Council of Elrond that the destruction of the Ring is even introduced as an option. In the book, Gandalf mentions throwing the thing into the Cracks of Doom as early as I.2, "The Shadow of the Past". I think this is in keeping with how the linearity of the film demands a more streamlined action-reaction plot, but as you mentioned, the converse is true in many cases - such as the early revelation of Aragorn's claim to the throne.

[Black Breathalizer]

I don't dispute that there are many variations between the books and the films. But I get irritated with ill-informed Purists who whine on and on about how that villian Jackson "completely changed Frodo's role and character" and then, when pressed, proceed to give us lame examples such as the ones below (in bold) from The Gaffer:

Film Frodo is a teenager
I already addressed the common mistake many so-called 'Purists' have made in envisioning Frodo as a fiftysomething human. (I'm soooo glad I never pictured one of my favorite book characters as some old geezer!)

Film Frodo has a look of terror on his face all the time
If you don't think Book Frodo was afraid, you don't know the books nearly as well as you think you do -- which is too bad because that was an important part of Tolkien's vision.

Film Frodo runs away from fights (Moria)
Runs Away? You must have seen a different version of the movie than I did. Frodo fought the goblins like everyone else in the Fellowship did. He did hide from the cave troll (as did Merry & Pippin). Frankly, having Frodo fight a cave troll WOULD HAVE CHANGED Frodo's character because he certainly wasn't an idiot!!!. But when the cave troll tried to grab him, Frodo did fight back, cutting the troll's hand with Sting.

Film Frodo doesn't defy the Nazgul (Fords).
This whole stupid Purist arguement that Film Frodo's character changed revolves around this one. No, Frodo didn't defy the Nazgul at the Fords. But it is a huge stretch to say that this one plot change resulted in a total personality change for Frodo. The reality is that some Purists absolutely hated the flight to the ford's plot change and desperately want to be able to say it ruined the rest of the film series. Sorry, but the plot changed worked and, from a screenplay perspective, it makes total sense. Another way to look at it is that Jackson wanted to follow Tolkien's lead and "make it all feel real." Unlike the book, showing a three-foot hobbit on death's door riding a large stallion over a great distance with the ringwraiths in close pursuit would have looked hokey at best and fakey at worst.

Film Frodo OFFERS THE ******* RING TO THE NAZGUL FOR ****'S SAKE (Osgiliath)
Like most Purist arguements, this one is based on fantasy, not reality. Watch the DVD again. Frodo doesn't offer the ring to the Nazgul. He's got the ring attached to the chain around his neck. He's simply being tempted to put the ring on.

Film Frodo is completely taken in by Smeagol
How would you describe Book Frodo's relationship with Smeagol? Please share with us how dramatically different their relationship is between the books and the films.

Film Frodo is already completely under the Ring's control
Completely under the ring's control? That's a rather sweeping statement. If you are referring to how Frodo acts in Osgiliath, you might want to check out how Frodo acts in the valley of Minas Morgul.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The role of Aragorn would be a good example of that: in the film, it's clear from early on that he's "heir to the throne of Gondor" (thanks, Legolas). In the book, this only becomes apparent in TTT, and the full significance doesn't really sink in until ROTK.

Ummm no it doesn't. Aragorn is definitely introduced as who he is in Fellowship in the books...In the chapter called "Strider" there are many refereces to who Strider is and then later in the Council of Elrong it is explained further as well when Aragorn, Elrond and Bilbo speak of who Aragorn is to Boromir. It's pretty apparent if you read those chapters...

[IronParrot]

Ummm no it doesn't. Aragorn is definitely introduced as who he is in Fellowship in the books...In the chapter called "Strider" there are many refereces to who Strider is and then later in the Council of Elrong it is explained further as well when Aragorn, Elrond and Bilbo speak of who Aragorn is to Boromir. It's pretty apparent if you read those chapters...

It's true that in both the book and film, it's known right from the outset that there's no doubt Aragorn is the King that "Returns" in Books V and VI. However, I think the difference that The Gaffer was pointing out is how early on we focus on the issue of how Aragorn is going to approach this ascension to the throne - his motives, his doubts, et cetera. The focus, if you will.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by IronParrot
It's true that in both the book and film, it's known right from the outset that there's no doubt Aragorn is the King that "Returns" in Books V and VI. However, I think the difference that The Gaffer was pointing out is how early on we focus on the issue of how Aragorn is going to approach this ascension to the throne - his motives, his doubts, et cetera. The focus, if you will.

I would agree that the films highlight Aragorn's doubts more, but I disagree that his motives were any more or less evident in the film or book.

[IronParrot]

I would agree that the films highlight Aragorn's doubts more, but I disagree that his motives were any more or less evident in the film or book.

I think that depends on how much emphasis you place on Appendix A, and how integral you see it as part of LOTR proper itself.

His motives are equivalently evident, yes, but that's if you count the background explored in Appendix A. Obviously the film wasn't going to tack on a half-hour segment about Aragorn and Arwen at the very end, so naturally it integrated the goods of it into the primary narrative. That's what I was referring to.

[The Gaffer]

IronParrot has expressed what I meant regarding Aragorn better than I did. You have to see it in the context of a reader/viewer who does not know what's going to happen.

Frodo/Smeagol is dealt with very differently. In the film, they do a fantastic job of making us see the parallels between them, right down to an implicit identity (Frodo IS Smeagol). This is a stroke of genius, since we don't know that Smeagol was a hobbit.

In the book, it is pity that rules their relationship, and the fact that "servant" Smeagol has a claim on "Master" Frodo. BTW, it looks to me as if this will be played out in more detail in ROTK.

I agree that many of the other examples I quoted are open to interpretation, but I don't think you can dismiss them on the basis of not having watched the film often enough. I've (only) seen TTT twice, which is probably once more than most people, and both times it was my impression that Frodo was offering the ring up to the (Harrier jump-jet equipped) Nazgul. To credit the film-makers with any sort of ability, you have to assume that this was, at the very least, supposed to be ambiguous.

I don't recall saying that Frodo was not afraid in the books. Perhaps I did not make myself clear: the point is that, in the books, Frodo is the central character and he takes us through a whole gamut of complex emotions. Similarly, the point made about his age was to do with his maturity, not his appearance.

It is, of course, possible to deride all comment as being the ravings of an "ill-informed purist". That, in itself, has no bearing on their validity and is simply childish name-calling.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Frodo/Smeagol is dealt with very differently. In the film, they do a fantastic job of making us see the parallels between them, right down to an implicit identity (Frodo IS Smeagol). This is a stroke of genius, since we don't know that Smeagol was a hobbit.

In the book, it is pity that rules their relationship, and the fact that "servant" Smeagol has a claim on "Master" Frodo. BTW, it looks to me as if this will be played out in more detail in ROTK.

I would submit that pity was the central theme of the film as well. Like the book, Film Frodo says: "Now that I see him, I do pity him." But as you pointed out, through his visuals, Jackson is able to communicate to the audience that part of Frodo's pity and protective feelings stem from the fact that he understands how Gollum got to where he is and realizes that could be himself someday.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It is, of course, possible to deride all comment as being the ravings of an "ill-informed purist". That, in itself, has no bearing on their validity and is simply childish name-calling.

That's just my Gollum side coming out. Don't take it personal because it's not meant that way. It's just me being provocative. I'm really a swell guy. Honest.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I would submit that pity was the central theme of the film as well. Like the book, Film Frodo says: "Now that I see him, I do pity him." But as you pointed out, through his visuals, Jackson is able to communicate to the audience that part of Frodo's pity and protective feelings stem from the fact that he understands how Gollum got to where he is and realizes that could be himself someday.

Well, we can agree on that. It's one of the best things about TTT, in fact.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer That's just my Gollum side coming out. Don't take it personal because it's not meant that way. It's just me being provocative. I'm really a swell guy. Honest. [/B]

Apology accepted. Does that mean I should pity you?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Apology accepted. Does that mean I should pity you?

Gollum: Stupid, fat Tolkien Purist! Wicked, tricksy, false. We NEVER apologized, did we, precioussss? No, we would never apologize to a Purist.

BB-éagol: No! No! We must be nice to The Gaffer!

Gollum: The Gaffer is a Purist. He will cheat you, hurt you and ... WHINE!!!

BB-éagol: But The Gaffer is a Mooter. He's one of our friends.

Gollum: You don't have any friends. Nobody likes you.

BB-éagol: Not listening. Not listening.

Gollum: You're a blowhard ... a jerk...

BB-éagol: No.

Gollum: TROLL!!!

BB-éagol: Go away.

Gollum: Go away?! Ahahhaa!"

BB-éagol: I hate you, I hate you!

Gollum: Where would you be without me? ... gollum...gollum ... I save us every day. It is me. We survive on this stupid message board because of ME!"

BB-éagol: Not anymore.

Gollum: What did you say?

BB-éagol: Master IronParrot looks after us now. He's a bigshot Mooter administrator with thousands upon thousands of thoughtful posts. He even has the power to close or move whole threads!!! We don't need you anymore.

Gollum: What?

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back.

Gollum: No!

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back!

Gollum: Arrrgh!

BB-éagol: LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK!

silence.

BB-éagol: Yippiee!!! BB is FREE!!! (BB turns and faces you, the reader.) This means I'll be nice to you if you be nice to ussss. You can trust BB. Honest.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Frodo/Smeagol is dealt with very differently. In the film, they do a fantastic job of making us see the parallels between them, right down to an implicit identity (Frodo IS Smeagol). This is a stroke of genius, since we don't know that Smeagol was a hobbit.

I have to respectfully disagree again, because in the books it is made apparent that Smeagol came from Hobbitt descendency. Gandalf actually talks about it.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Gollum: Stupid, fat Tolkien Purist! Wicked, tricksy, false. We NEVER apologized, did we, precioussss? No, we would never apologize to a Purist.

BB-éagol: No! No! We must be nice to The Gaffer!

Gollum: The Gaffer is a Purist. He will cheat you, hurt you and ... WHINE!!!

BB-éagol: But The Gaffer is a Mooter. He's one of our friends.

Gollum: You don't have any friends. Nobody likes you.

BB-éagol: Not listening. Not listening.

Gollum: You're a blowhard ... a jerk...

BB-éagol: No.

Gollum: TROLL!!!

BB-éagol: Go away.

Gollum: Go away?! Ahahhaa!"

BB-éagol: I hate you, I hate you!

Gollum: Where would you be without me? ... gollum...gollum ... I save us every day. It is me. We survive on this stupid message board because of ME!"

BB-éagol: Not anymore.

Gollum: What did you say?

BB-éagol: Master IronParrot looks after us now. He's a bigshot Mooter administrator with thousands upon thousands of thoughtful posts. He even has the power to close or move whole threads!!! We don't need you anymore.

Gollum: What?

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back.

Gollum: No!

BB-éagol: Leave now and never come back!

Gollum: Arrrgh!

BB-éagol: LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK!

silence.

BB-éagol: Yippiee!!! BB is FREE!!! (BB turns and faces you, the reader.) This means I'll be nice to you if you be nice to ussss. You can trust BB. Honest.

LMAO! That was great BB, lol