What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gordis

He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.

I just meant that he didn't track down every copy of LotR in the world and light them on fire. The books really are untouched.

Maybe it isn't like this for a lot of people but when I read the books, it's my own images of the Nine Companions that are in my head. Aragorn does look vaguely like Viggo Mortensen with long hair and a three day's growth beard, but I always thought Viggo Mortensen did look vaguely like Aragorn.

Frodo has curly brown hair, but I actually can't picture his eyes (must re-read the book I guess). He looks like he's in his mid-thirties even though he's fifty.

Gandalf has a grey-blue hat and Legolas has black hair.

My mental images have faded a bit, but I haven't read the books in quite a while. While I find the LotR movies mediocre, they also don't have a lot of sticking power because of this. They bugged me a lot more when they first came out.

My biggest problem with them now is they don't stand alone as good movies. Without the audience's knowledge of the book the plot is incoherent, yet the movie needlessly mangles aspects of the book. If you're going to mangle, you have least have to have a functioning plot at the end. That's what I say about book>movie adaptations.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My mental images have faded a bit, but I haven't read the books in quite a while. While I find the LotR movies mediocre, they also don't have a lot of sticking power because of this. They bugged me a lot more when they first came out.

My biggest problem with them now is they don't stand alone as good movies. Without the audience's knowledge of the book the plot is incoherent, yet the movie needlessly mangles aspects of the book. If you're going to mangle, you have least have to have a functioning plot at the end. That's what I say about book>movie adaptations.

I respectfully disagree. My kids loved them and could follow them quite well, getting what I would say are all the major themes from purely watching the movies.

But I think this is mostly because they approached it with a clean slate.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

He did ruin a lot. OK, there are lots of people who would buy and read the books after seeing the movies - but how many would not? How many will think they KNOW Tolkien because they have only seen the movies? We meet such again and again on all the forums - they are a plague.

A PLAGUE? Kinda harsh, isn't it? A lot of people think they know economics because they read the paper, and they vote on public policy, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them a plague. If you think people posting with limited knowledge are a plague you might consider decaf.

Brave? - the guy simply wished to make money and gain fame! How many knew about PJ before the LOTR movies? And tell me, please, HOW MANY of you would go watch the movies if they were NOT presented as an adaptation of Tolkien? I wouldn't go for sure - as I will never go watch other movies made by PJ. The movies were a success because of Tolkien's name , not Peter Jackson's.

Owing everything to Tolkien, PJ should have had some decency in treating his work - but he has ruined everything!

Actually, PJ was a fairly well-known director. And you can't have it both ways. Either people had never read Tolkien before the movies (the plague folks) or they only went because it was Tolkien. Can't be both. People went to see an epic with swordfighting and special effects, and they got it. Tolkien fans need to remember the intrinsic limitations of film. You can't complain the film has lasting images. That's its job. It's a visual medium.

Look at other movies, Dune, for example. Even people familier with the books couldn't make head nor tails of it. Spielberg got kicked off HP because his distinctive directors vision was competitive with JKR. Even though I was not thrilled with those movies, I thought they were better off without him. Every wand burst would have had chimes.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Tolkien seemed to think so himself - he didn't want a flawed image, much less a twisted one. Just look at what he wrote about Zimmerman's script in his letters.

I couldn't be less interested in Tolkien's intent...in which I know I differ from many here. Ultimately, I think an artist is judged on the content of the work,and its impact on the audience, only, and intent is irrelevent. Art is a collaboration between the artist and the audience. Artists complaining about being misconstrued are being lazy.

I think you overestimate the importance of Tolkien forums in the overall response to the movies. PJ doesn't care a strawbit about the purists opinion.

Probably not. And good on him. He has a responsibility, and it's not as a documentarian.

Yea - and now it works perfectly: first we have Arwen the Warrior-babe, then Arwen a withering flower, and at the end this disgusting public kiss. Great characterization - and how consistent!

Are you suggesting that women are basically one-dimensional?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I just meant that he didn't track down every copy of LotR in the world and light them on fire. The books really are untouched.

Maybe it isn't like this for a lot of people but when I read the books, it's my own images of the Nine Companions that are in my head. Aragorn does look vaguely like Viggo Mortensen with long hair and a three day's growth beard, but I always thought Viggo Mortensen did look vaguely like Aragorn.

Frodo has curly brown hair, but I actually can't picture his eyes (must re-read the book I guess). He looks like he's in his mid-thirties even though he's fifty.

He can't be more than 20 at the Long Expected Party. It's the end of his tweens. MAAAAybe 30 by his departure. He's a baby.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

He can't be more than 20 at the Long Expected Party. It's the end of his tweens. MAAAAybe 30 by his departure. He's a baby.

Have YOU read the books, darling?

[The Gaffer]

Siscuza is right (except about Frodo's age... ) about art, but IMO I think you can convey the spirit of a story in a film much more effectively than was achieved on LOTR. And that's even with the hack & slash factor.

In fact, if they had been less concerned about the purists ("oh, we'll get our arses kicked if we don't include Treebeard", for example) they might have produced a better film. On the other hand, the stuff they did add was pretty gash on the whole and did not bode well for a major reworking.

Great to see Black Breathalyzer back!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Have YOU read the books, darling?

I first read The Hobbit long before your parents met, Gordis, I'll betcha. If 33 is the coming of age, it corresponds to 18-21. That's the age Frodo is when Bilbo leaves. He has the Ring (which extends life) and hobbits age slower than today's men, so he continues to have the appearance of a very young man. You couldn't cast it older than 30. I can understand why they didn't cast someone actually 18-20, because people are still growing at that point, and the years filming would show. But not everyone is Micky Rooney, to play juveniles, forever.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Siscuza is right (except about Frodo's age... ) about art, but IMO I think you can convey the spirit of a story in a film much more effectively than was achieved on LOTR. And that's even with the hack & slash factor.

In fact, if they had been less concerned about the purists ("oh, we'll get our arses kicked if we don't include Treebeard", for example) they might have produced a better film. On the other hand, the stuff they did add was pretty gash on the whole and did not bode well for a major reworking.

Possibly. It's an enormous undertaking. I went to the movies with people who knew the material inside and out, and with people who had no clue. Both could follow the action, which was a point in its favor, I think. PJ made different choices than I would, but I'm sure my choices would be equally unpopular

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I first read The Hobbit long before your parents met, Gordis, I'll betcha.

Ah sooo...I thought your reaction to "the plague" sounded a bit ... personal.

Anyway, the problem with PJ's Frodo is not that he LOOKS a baby, but that he ACTS like a baby. Witless piece of luggage to be hauled around - no more.

[The Gaffer]

Hehehe, good answer siscuz.

The Old Took was, what, 120 or something; 102 was "ripe but disappointing"; I reckon a factor of 2/3 to 3/4 is in order. IIRC Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, which would correspond to 30-35+ or so. Which is probably why we've got that clash between our mind's eye and what's on the screen.

Anyway, it was the portrayal, rather than the casting that was the problem.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Naw. Struck me as humorous.

I think Tolkien's Frodo is kind of a straw man. That's not unusual for a writer of JRR's academic background. A classical "protagonist" should undergo a character change as a result of the circumstances of the book, and Frodo really doesn't, because he has more in common with medieval static heroes. By this standard, Sam is the evolving protagonist, although these literary quibbles are, imo, quibbles. At any rate, there isn't much for an actor (or screenwriter) to work with, and, given the length of the piece, that's a real problem. Frodo in the books doesn't make many real choices...hard to create that. "I will take it, although I do not know the way." controls the entire rest of the story, unless you consider his relationship with Gollum as his second choice.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

IIRC Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, which would correspond to 30-35+ or so. Which is probably why we've got that clash between our mind's eye and what's on the screen.

You forget the ring. I don't think he got older in appearance between the party and the departure...or at least not much.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You forget the ring. I don't think he got older in appearance between the party and the departure...or at least not much.

Not older but fatter.

Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked out at him thoughtfully.-Many Meetings

But ...Frodo - static? Here is one guy who has changed from a cheerful careless hobbit into something in-between Gollum, a Ringwraith and a saint... One guy who has become so out-of-tune in the old Shire that he had to go heal in the Undying lands...Are you serious?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Not older but fatter.


But ...Frodo - static? Here is one guy who has changed from a cheerful careless hobbit into something in-between Gollum, a Ringwraith and a saint... One guy who has become so out-of-tune in the old Shire that he had to go heal in the Undying lands...Are you serious?

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to back it up with something from the book.

In the movie - yes, Frodo is a sissy and a dull sissy throughout.

In the book Saruman (a good judge of characters I think) comments:

Saruman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. "You have grown, Halfling," he said. "Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you health and long life. You will have neither. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Absolutely. I think Frodo is always kind of saintly and dull. It's the younger hobbits who grow up. Frodo's a "good boy."

I'd have to agree. While Tolkien tries to paint him as changed, he's really different from your average hobbit from day one. Maybe a result of having lost his parents at such a young age, which would seem to be extremely uncommon among hobbits.

He's always been more the responsible type than the carefree. I suppose he has a few carefree moments, like in Bree but, in general, his personality is pretty set to begin with.

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you have to back it up with something from the book.

In the movie - yes, Frodo is a sissy and a dull sissy throughout.

In the book Saruman (a good judge of characters I think) comments:

If Saruman was a good judge of character, he would have won.

Frodo: As master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say goodbye to the guests. Rumours of strange events had by now spread all over the field, but Frodo would only say no doubt everything will be cleared up in the morning.Fellowship pg 63.

Name one fun thing Frodo ever did. Even the "hey diddle diddle" business starts with "Frodo was annoyed." Fellowship pg 215

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?

And, as far as that goes, was Frodo actually motivated by malice, as Saruman says? I don't think so.

[Gordis]

He's always been more the responsible type than the carefree. I suppose he has a few carefree moments, like in Bree but, in general, his personality is pretty set to begin with.

He was not much different from other respectable hobbits – only a bit more given to reflection and wandering alone. But - while he was young, he used to steal Maggot’s mushrooms. Not Pippin and Merry (as in the films), but Frodo. In the books Merry, for instance, was no less responsible than Frodo, and Sam was doubly and triply so.

And was it being responsible behaving like this?

‘You ought to go quietly, and you ought to go soon,’ said Gandalf. Two or three weeks had passed, and still Frodo made no sign of getting ready to go. […]To tell the truth, he was very reluctant to start, now that it had come to the point. Bag End seemed a more desirable residence than it had for years, and he wanted to savour as much as he could of his last summer in the Shire. When autumn came, he knew that part at least of his heart would think more kindly of journeying, as it always did at that season.

And that was already after he learned that he and his ring were wanted by Sauron!

And that’s what they were doing on the eve of the departure:

”‘Whatever happens to the rest of my stuff, when the Sackville--Bbagginses get their claws on it, at any rate I have found a good home for this!” said Frodo, as he drained his glass. It was the last drop of Old Winyards.
When they had sung many songs, and talked of many things they had done together, they toasted Bilbo’s birthday, and they drank his health and Frodo’s together according to Frodo’s custom. Then they went out for a sniff of air, and glimpse of the stars, and then they went to bed. Frodo’s party was over, and Gandalf had not come.”

Not to mention FRODO’s song in the Pony and HIS table-dancing.

(By the way that’s why I blame the films – after seeing PJ’s stuff, people tend to forget the facts from the books.)

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As far as Saruman's comments go, he never even met Frodo until the scouring, so how would he know how much Frodo had changed?

He may not have known Frodo, but he knew other hobbits:

Seeing then that Gandalf thought the Shire worth visiting, Saruman himself visited it, but disguised and in the utmost secrecy, until he had explored and noted all its ways and lands, and thought then he had learned all that there was to know of it. And even when it seemed to him no longer wise nor profitable to go thither, he still had spies and servants that went in or kept an eye upon its borders. – UT, Hunt for the Ring

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

IFrodo: As master of Bag End, Frodo felt it his painful duty to say goodbye to the guests. Rumours of strange events had by now spread all over the field, but Frodo would only say no doubt everything will be cleared up in the morning.Fellowship pg 63.

Even the "hey diddle diddle" business starts with "Frodo was annoyed." Fellowship pg 215

and ends with "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself. He capered about on the table; and when he came a second time to the cow jumped over the Moon, he leaped in the air."

And do you think that Pippin wouldn't be compelled to say goodbye to the guests if HE became the Master of Bag-End? One has obligations, after all.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

He was not much different from other respectable hobbits – only a bit more given to reflection and wandering alone. But - while he was young, he used to steal Maggot’s mushrooms. Not Pippin and Merry (as in the films), but Frodo. In the books Merry, for instance, was no less responsible than Frodo, and Sam was doubly and triply so.

And was it being responsible behaving like this?

And that was already after he learned that he and his ring were wanted by Sauron!

And that’s what they were doing on the eve of the departure:


Not to mention FRODO’s song in the Pony and HIS table-dancing.

(By the way that’s why I blame the films – after seeing PJ’s stuff, people tend to forget the facts from the books.)


He may not have known Frodo, but he knew other hobbits:

Are you saying, "as a young man, he stole produce, and as an adult, he raised a glass with friends"? That doesn't even rate "Tookish." He's glum. And no fun.

Saruman was a very poor judge of character, starting with misjudging the White Council.

Originally Posted by Gordis

and ends with "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself. He capered about on the table; and when he came a second time to the cow jumped over the Moon, he leaped in the air."

And do you think that Pippin wouldn't be compelled to say goodbye to the guests if HE became the Master of Bag-End? One has obligations, after all.

Frodo has nothing but obligations. He's a drudge. And that's not PJ's fault, it's Tolkien's. You probably don't know much about how actors work, but the key is making bold choices. Tolkien's version of Frodo has darn few of those available.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Are you saying, "as a young man, he stole produce, and as an adult, he raised a glass with friends"? That doesn't even rate "Tookish." He's glum. And no fun.

Then who of the hobbits is fun - according to you? Ted? Lotho? Sam? Merry? Pippin? And what fun things did any of them ever made?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Saruman was a very poor judge of character, starting with misjudging the White Council.

He has judged them and fooled them ALL well enough, including the oh-so-wise Gandy.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Frodo has nothing but obligations. He's a drudge. And that's not PJ's fault, it's Tolkien's. You probably don't know much about how actors work, but the key is making bold choices. Tolkien's version of Frodo has darn few of those available.

And PJ's versoin of Frodo has none available whatsoever - a perpetual close-up on Frodo's frightened tearful eyes. All his moments of glory he had in the books were denied him.

By the way, Earniel - I think this discussion - starting with this post:

I think Tolkien's Frodo is kind of a straw man. That's not unusual for a writer of JRR's academic background.... etc

would fare much better in LOTR Books forum. After all, we are discussing Tolkien's Frodo -whether he was a flat and dull character. As for PJ's Frodo he doesn't even deserve a discussion, IMO.