What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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?

Pippin. "Come and have your breakfast. The bread tastes almost as good as it did last night. I did not want to leave you any, but Sam insisted." Frodo sat down between Sam and began to eat....discussion, riders, sniffing..."In that case, I'm sure Gildor would have refused to discuss it!" said Frodo sharply."And now leave me in peace, for a bit! I don't want to answer a string of questions while I am eating. I want to think!"

"Good heavens" said Pippin. "At breakfast?"

Frodo is cranky. He's always cranky.

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

Agreed. We'll call the thread, "Frodo is a bore", and I'm thread starter.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Pippin. "Come and have your breakfast. The bread tastes almost as good as it did last night. I did not want to leave you any, but Sam insisted." Frodo sat down between Sam and began to eat....discussion, riders, sniffing..."In that case, I'm sure Gildor would have refused to discuss it!" said Frodo sharply."And now leave me in peace, for a bit! I don't want to answer a string of questions while I am eating. I want to think!"

"Good heavens" said Pippin. "At breakfast?"

Pippin is the only one of them under-age: twenty-eight or twenty-nine.
There is a reason for him to act more childishly. Frodo, on the other hand, is 50 - the oldest. He may not look 50, but he surely feels like it. He is no child anymore and no moron.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Pippin is the only one of them under-age: twenty-eight or twenty-nine.
There is a reason for him to act more childishly. Frodo, on the other hand, is 50 - the oldest. He may not look 50, but he surely feels like it. He is no child anymore and no moron.

You can be young. You can be old. You can be a bore.

Frodo is two of those things. They aren't necessarily related.

Bilbo was the same age, and he wasn't a drag.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You can be young. You can be old. You can be a bore.

Frodo is two of those things. They aren't necessarily related.

Bilbo was the same age, and he wasn't a drag.

Bilbo was in a kid's book. The Elves there were also quite different.

Hobbits in general are not much fun. Pippin seems livelier because he is young. Frodo, Merry, Ted, Lotho, Lobelia etc. etc are equally entertaining - or equally boring - Frodo didn't differ from the average initially.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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

That's kind of a stretch!

My point was that Saruman did not know Frodo, who was not a typical hobbit to begin with.

I'm not saying that Frodo didn't change a bit, but compared to many other charaters, his change was quite small. Many others "lost their innocence", so to speak. I think Frodo did long before the books when he lost his parents.

[Gordis]

By the way, you have deviated from your original statement, sisterandcousinandaunt. The question is not whether Frodo is a bore (all hobbits are dull, IMO, and he is little different), but whether he is a static character:

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.

I would like to see in what way Sam was evolving. IMO he is the most static character of all - starts as a perfect bodyguard and ends as such. Not even the One ring was able to change him.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

My point was that Saruman did not know Frodo, who was not a typical hobbit to begin with.

I'm not saying that Frodo didn't change a bit, but compared to many other charaters, his change was quite small. Many others "lost their innocence", so to speak. I think Frodo did long before the books when he lost his parents.

He was typical enough to start with. After being adopted by Bilbo he has changed a bit, became more educated and clever than an average hobbit, read Bilbo's books, learned Elvish, that's why Gandalf has liked him so much.

But real character changes started with the Quest and the terrible responsbility it has entailed. He was innocent enough at the beginning, but by the time of Weathertop he was another hobbit entirely. And after his Morgul wound, he got features of a wraith on one hand and a saint on the other. And then he was slowly acquiring features of a wannabe Ringlord ...and Gollum. At the Cracks he was hardly human at all. And after the quest he was broken, unable to cope without the Ring, unable to adapt to the Shire again.

[brownjenkins]

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gordis

By the way, you have deviated from your original statement, sisterandcousinandaunt. The question is not whether Frodo is a bore (all hobbits are dull, IMO, and he is little different), but whether he is a static character:


I would like to see in what way Sam was evolving. IMO he is the most static character of all - starts as a perfect bodyguard and ends as such. Not even the One ring was able to change him.

Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.

This would be true, if the story had any real motivation or characterizations. Fortunately, we're largely free of those. Everyone's a chess piece. Hard to work up a decent characterization from that (which is where this discussion started.)

Sam, who starts as an innocent "Everyman" with a naive dream of seeing the elves, and actually encounters, and responds to, evil, has the most space for growth. Frodo is a task embodied, Sam makes choices.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe. But I can't see how losing both your parents so young, in a society where death is probably quite rare at a younger age, could not effect you in a sobering way.

Of course it did effect him, how could it not? But his going to live with Bilbo - a most unusual hobbit - did even more. He got more knowledge of the outside world and taste for adventures -dormant yet.

"Sobering" surprises me. All grown-up hobbits were sober enough, dull even. Look at the talk in the Dragon.

But they had incredible mental stability: look at this nice dialogue of two hobbits who have just escaped a mortal danger. Pippin and Merry in Fangorn.

As they walked they compared notes, talking lightly in hobbit-fashion of the things that had happened since their capture. No listener would have guessed from their words that they had suffered cruelly, and been in dire peril, going without hope towards torment and death; or that even now, as they knew well, they had little chance of ever finding friend or safety again.
'You seem to have been doing well, Master Took,' said Merry. 'You will get almost a chapter in old Bilbo's book, if ever I get a chance to report to him. Good work: especially guessing that hairy villain's little game, and playing up to him. But I wonder if anyone will ever pick up your trail and find that brooch. I should hate to lose mine, but I am afraid yours is gone for good.
'I shall have to brush up my toes, if I am to get level with you. Indeed Cousin Brandybuck is going in front now. This is where he comes in.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man.

The fact that he was able to put all this ring-business behind him proves the contrary: that it has touched him very little. Surprisingly little. He is always the same, Sam the steadfast - dull and reliable.

And marrying? What does in have to do with "growing up" or "losing innocence" - unless you take innocence literally. Sam would have married Rosie anyway, if only her parents agreed to it.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This would be true, if the story had any real motivation or characterizations. Fortunately, we're largely free of those. Everyone's a chess piece. Hard to work up a decent characterization from that (which is where this discussion started.)

Now you seem to generalize even more. No real characterization throughout?
Then I have a question - why are you loosing your time discussing such a bad book?

[Belwen_of_nargothrond]

The only thing I really liked about the movies is the casting. They did a great job with that. I saw the movies before I read the books and when I read the books, I was very disappointed. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place when Frodo was injured? Most of all I didn't like the fact that Haldir was killed off when he wasn't even suppose to be at Helm's Deep.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Sam grows up. It's not earth-shattering, and many people do it, but he moves away from the whole ring business and gets married and settles down. He starts as a child and becomes a man.

I strongly agree! It's for this reason that I so much dig the scene in the bar at the end when Sam finally summons up the courage to approach Rosie. True courage is conquering your deepest fears and Sam, corny as it sounds, greatly feared laying it on the line with his true love. But he did it!

[EowynRocks]

I think that really it would be SOOO hard to get the movie just right but they still could have done a lot better!!!
Ranting points:
- Nazgul pathetic. Unable to catch running hobbit even when on horse
- Faramir = NASTY . What happened to the nicer version of boromir from the books?? He was ousted to be replaced by this EVIL person. Grrr.
- Aragorn is crying out for a self-esteem course
- Merry, Pippin and Gimli turned into idiots for comic relief.
AND THAT'S JUST A START.
PJ may have tried his hardest, it was necessary that they should cut things, etc, etc, etc, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Phew. Rant over.
PS This is my first post - how was it?

[The Gaffer]

Hello Eowynrocks. I can see you'll fit right in.

What really nipped my head is that they did all the hard bits really well (rendering these different species and cultures, and making it all look real) and messed up the easy bits (tell a decent story that made some sort of sense with believable characters).

It was worth itthough, eh? The Shire, Ride of the Rohirrim, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, er, .. um... that's it...

[EowynRocks]

Yeah, you're right, Gaffer. They paid so much attention to the fiddly special effects like the orcs and the balrog.etc,etc,etc and they seemed to forget that lotr is a really cool book series, not some sleazy hollywood affair! Also Frodo was turned into a really nasty chap and poor old Sam got a really rough deal looking after such a grumpy old codger. Aragorn was just a sword swinging idiot, Legolas was cool but with really odd mega straight hair, Gimli was comic relief, Gandalf had several nasty moments (like asking frodo to choose caradhras or moria, etc.) Need I go on?
Sorry, it's a bit long. But once I get ranting I can't stop

[Nurvingiel]

I agree. A good script and a good plot will go a long way for me. The thing is, those are actually the difficult bits in movie-making. CGI technology is so advanced, that you can do a great job with it if you have the budget. You need actual talent to write a good script, and that's what was lacking for the LoTR movies.

I agree that the casting was excellent - that's not particularly easy either.

[Curufin]

Well, I liked the music...

When I saw the first movie, I loved it. It blew me away. But then I went out and read the books, and now the movies rather disgust me in their entirety. They're just so...not Tolkien. And all the stupid bits - like the Elves at Helm's Deep...the stupid warg attack...the horse-snogging scene...Gimli as comic relief...the fact that all Elves looked perpetually stoned...

Nope, sorry. Not Tolkien to me.

[Jon S.]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien is like saying the sun is not the moon. Now that we've settled that, why not enjoy the movies for what they are? That's my approach and, not surprisingly, it works for me without detracting an iota from my love of the books.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Saying the movies are not Tolkien...

No, it's not. Not at all, because they're supposed to be Tolkien's story. These movies were not just an adaptation, they were a desecration.

The biggest crime to me is the destruction of many of the main characters. Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Gimli, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, and Denethor were particularly heinous.

Sam, Eomer, and Gollum were ok.

Legolas and Arwen...wha???

I can't even begin to address all the made-up scenes that took away from what the story was really about.

[BeardofPants]

Cos the movies still suck despite being tolkien-derived? I dislike the movies because they're crap movies, not because they're crap tolkien-derivatives.