Bofur and Pigs and Frodo and Sam, etc.

[Pearly Di]

... I never found Frodo all that interesting. I'm one of those that generally agree with the criticism that most of LOTR's characters are kinda flat and dull and I lump Frodo in with those characters.

Really? You think that most of LotR's characters are kinda flat and dull?

Wow. I adore them. All of them. Including the bad guys!

Tolkien's characters very much fit traditional tropes and archeytpes - including the hobbits - but he does such great things with those tropes, IMO.

I can understand why people don't find Frodo that interesting at the beginning - although that is not a view I share - but Tolkien starts to colour him in soon enough.

I found it hard to forgive JRRT in the Collected Letters when he said to a reader that 'Frodo is not so interesting' because he is the high-minded one on a mission. Sam is given more character development by the Prof, certainly. But Frodo has my heart.

ETA:

Smaug's Voice, Frodo is the central protagonist because he is the one with the most serious mission - he volunteered to throw the Ring in the fire, he is the Ringbearer. His destiny and his doom.

Viewing the story from other characters' POVs - like Sam, Merry and Pippin - of course enrich it. I have a big soft spot for Merry.

[yovargas]

Certainly the speech is a sentimental speech. But in my head, Sam is a pretty sentimental guy. It'd sound phony coming from anyone else but it sounds so natural coming from him. That's part of what I love about him.

[axordil]

For my own part, I respect (enjoy isn't the right word) the depiction of Frodo's character, but that's not the same as identifying with him, which I find impossible on both dramatic and theological grounds. I do not believe I'm alone in that. A story where the purpose of the main character is to suffer has limited mainstream appeal, so any adaptation designed for commercial success has a Hobson's Choice: change the character to be less passive or allow the other characters around him to horn in on the protagonist's job enough to make it work.

[Smaug's voice]

*ignored*

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Ah. :D

I dislike Sam's speech for the same reason Passdagas does ... I think it's sentimental. And because I think it shows that PJ really does rate Sam higher than Frodo.

I would guess that PJ & Co. understood objectively enough the role of Frodo in the book. I just think they chose to recast him as the hardcore junkie and everything else falls out of that decision. The junkie does take, take, take, and abuses his friends and loved ones, and goes off with his junkie mates. But it's his friends and loved ones who keep on trying and keep coming back to protect him and look after him who, actually, are the heroes. I think that was the story they wanted to tell and Sam is the hero of that piece. The dechristification of Frodo was never going to go any other way.

In their defence (however misguided and unsatisfactory both the intent and the result were in my personal opinion) I think they were always looking to try to resonate with a modern audience, which is what Sam's monologuery is all about.

Is this still the pigs thread?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

*ignored*

Did you not see Pearly Di's edit?

[axordil]

*ignored*

Patience.

While all four of the hobbits are small-p protagonists, the division of the story into the main plot (Quest to Mordor) and the subplots (Rohan/Gondor, tied together at Pellenor) means they can't act as a group Protagonist. The Big P Protagonist has to be the main plot's focus.

One could make an argument that Frodo and Sam, or even Frodo, Sam and Gollum function as a group Protagonist from the Emyn Muil on, incorporating two different types of hero and one type of anti-hero with a nearly common goal. The Ring is the Antagonist in any case, not Gollum.

[axordil]

Is this still the pigs thread?

[yovargas]

Um, that's not a pig, it's a rabbit.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Is this still the pigs thread?

:pancake:

I don't know what that means, sorry, and I'm not sure I like any of the urban dictionary's suggestions.

[axordil]

It may have *been* a rabbit, but it is now a pig. Or a guinea pig at least, and as Mr. Butler's story proves, pigs is pigs. Just as this thread may have been about pigs, but is now about scene hogging.

[kzer_za]

I would guess that PJ & Co. understood objectively enough the role of Frodo in the book. I just think they chose to recast him as the hardcore junkie and everything else falls out of that decision. The junkie does take, take, take, and abuses his friends and loved ones, and goes off with his junkie mates. But it's his friends and loved ones who keep on trying and keep coming back to protect him and look after him who, actually, are the heroes. I think that was the story they wanted to tell and Sam is the hero of that piece. The dechristification of Frodo was never going to go any other way.

I think that for the movies, PJ and co. (including Wood) chose to heavily emphasize Frodo's suffering and sacrifice above all other aspects of his character. This is partly because the Ring is so much stronger in the movie - he starts feeling the burden much sooner and seldom smiles after he leaves the Shire, while in the book it isn't really crushing him until Cirith Ungol.

In the end, he is flatter and less well-rounded than book Frodo, but I still think they capture a lot of what's important. And while the execution of the Grey Havens could have been better, I do applaud PJ for including that and the post-quest unhappiness that leads to it.

[axordil]

Wasn't the Grey Havens filmed first, or close to it?

[kzer_za]

Actually, I think it was filmed last! I don't like the sappy slo-mo hugging, but the music, Frodo's smile before he leaves, and Gandalf's "not all tears" line make the scene for me.

Wood's Frodo does still have his moments of strength and courage, by the way, though there should have been more.

[Pearly Di]

A story where the purpose of the main character is to suffer has limited mainstream appeal, so any adaptation designed for commercial success has a Hobson's Choice: change the character to be less passive or allow the other characters around him to horn in on the protagonist's job enough to make it work.

I don't agree, Ax. There is an obvious third choice - beef up your protagonist!! PJ did it with Bilbo.

... I just think they chose to recast him as the hardcore junkie and everything else falls out of that decision. The junkie does take, take, take, and abuses his friends and loved ones, and goes off with his junkie mates. But it's his friends and loved ones who keep on trying and keep coming back to protect him and look after him who, actually, are the heroes. I think that was the story they wanted to tell and Sam is the hero of that piece. The dechristification of Frodo was never going to go any other way.

I don't accept that Frodo the Ring-addict was the only way to go. Especially as the casting sheets from 1999 (they used to be online, wonder if they still are anywhere) described Frodo as 'a natural leader'.

(I've never been a fan of the 'Frodo as Christ figure' theory ... I see Frodo more as a fellow pilgrim on the road.)

I do accept what others say about Film Frodo post-Quest and at the Havens. I do think PJ and the crew pretty much got Frodo's mood right there. So not all was lost.

Some readers see in Frodo's plight an analogy of depression. Works for me.

*ignored*

Did you not see Pearly Di's edit?

Yes, why did you delete your posts, Smaug's voice? I responded to the points you were making.

This issue has been discussed before but I find it frustrating when posts are deleted. It implies that you think your opinion is not worth listening to, when that is simply not the case.

[kzer_za]

And one prime example of this takes place in Osgiliath. What is Film Fro doing here, again? Is he OFFERING the Ring to the Nazgûl? Or is he just so overwhelmed by the Nazgûl that he is tempted to put the Ring on right there and then? I tried to put the most charitable spin on it but honestly this Frodo-fan was too busy frothing at the mouth to care ultimately which the hell it was. Nono

He's overwhelmingly tempted to put the Ring on - it's clearly moving towards his finger (and his finger toward the Ring), not toward the Nazgûl. This is in fact what often happens when he is around the Nazgûl in the books, and I believe he's even tempted to move toward the Witch King at Minas Morgul. Though I do think PJ should have toned that down at Minas Morgul - he had done it enough elsewhere.

I agree there are parts where they messed up with Frodo. He's too passive at the Ford, the endless cave troll grimace is awful, and even though I can tolerate "Go Home Sam" more than some, it's still a stupid idea.

At the same time, there are important parts they really get right in the movies, such as Frodo's mercy and compassion towards Gollum. The often-forgotten bit after Shelob's lair, where Frodo wants to spare Gollum even after his treachery is clear, is one of the better invented scenes. And he shows the courage and resourcefulness to get through Shelob's lair alone. I think movie Frodo is at his best in RotK, besides the Lembas Incident of course.

[yovargas]

Within the context of the movie, where Frodo's struggle against the ring is really crushing him by this point, Frodo getting to the point where he's not sure he trusts Sam isn't necessarily a terrible idea.....but to tell him to go home, like, what, he's just gonna catch the next bus over to the Shire? And then that Sam actually starts to leave . Even within the context of the movie, it's pretty clear that Sam would rather die than leave Frodo - especially when he knows the danger he's in!

Fortunately, it's a fairly brief diversion and it allows both Frodo and Sam some nice moments on their own.

[axordil]

A story where the purpose of the main character is to suffer has limited mainstream appeal, so any adaptation designed for commercial success has a Hobson's Choice: change the character to be less passive or allow the other characters around him to horn in on the protagonist's job enough to make it work.

I don't agree, Ax. There is an obvious third choice - beef up your protagonist!! PJ did it with Bilbo.

Bilbo was always more a more active protagonist, though, in the traditional mode of the Guile Hero. Frodo...isn't. Building up a passive protagonist doesn't make them any less passive.

[Pearly Di]

At the same time, there are important parts they really get right in the movies, such as Frodo's mercy and compassion towards Gollum. The often-forgotten bit after Shelob's lair, where Frodo wants to spare Gollum even after his treachery is clear, is one of the better invented scenes. And he shows the courage and resourcefulness to get through Shelob's lair alone. I think movie Frodo is at his best in RotK, besides the Lembas Incident of course.

I agree.

Bilbo was always more a more active protagonist, though, in the traditional mode of the Guile Hero. Frodo...isn't. Building up a passive protagonist doesn't make them any less passive.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see Frodo as passive. Hobbits are determined, and Frodo is determined to crawl up Mount Doom to the bitter end. Like all Tolkien's good guys and gals, he does the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Frodo as anti-hero? - I'll allow that. He fails in the Quest, after all, although that doesn't make him a failure (as Tolkien is at pains to point out). The overall filmic wimpification of Frodo - no. To me it was a cop-out.

"In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command."

That is not a passive character speaking, IMO.

Here's the TV Tropes page on Frodo (I love that site! ):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/C ... OfTheRings

ETA: At this point, I should probably do my own thread on Frodo.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

... I just think they chose to recast him as the hardcore junkie and everything else falls out of that decision. The junkie does take, take, take, and abuses his friends and loved ones, and goes off with his junkie mates. But it's his friends and loved ones who keep on trying and keep coming back to protect him and look after him who, actually, are the heroes. I think that was the story they wanted to tell and Sam is the hero of that piece. The dechristification of Frodo was never going to go any other way.

I don't accept that Frodo the Ring-addict was the only way to go. Especially as the casting sheets from 1999 (they used to be online, wonder if they still are anywhere) described Frodo as 'a natural leader'.

(I've never been a fan of the 'Frodo as Christ figure' theory ... I see Frodo more as a fellow pilgrim on the road.)

Right but, whether you call it Christ or not, you would accept that a plan is unfolding in accordance with the will of god, that Frodo is the chosen one, and that only by his supreme sacrifice can 'mankind' be saved from the shadow of evil? I think the film-makers downplayed this (to my mind essential) aspect of Frodo's character in preference to presenting him as an addict. It's all still there - it's still pre-determined that the ring will come to him, he's still the the one who puts one foot in front of the other and gets the ring to Mount Doom, and he's still the one who loses everything and can find no peace or comfort - and the addict concept exists in the book; I just feel the balance tipped so far towards an obsession so early that a hole appeared. So what I thought was inevitable was not the choice to play on the junkie theme, but the bolstering of Sam to fill that hole once the choice was made.

I don't know where the idea of a beefed-up Captain Frodo would take him (if I'm reading you right, based on Bilbo being more assertive and making good decisions); IMO that would have been significantly further from Frodoness than junkie Frodo.

I may have my parallels crossed but, in the same year as RotK, the Christ-appeal in The Matrix just didn't. I don't know if that was due to it disappearing up its own credits but the concept of redemption through sacrifice wasn't that well received. I think the structure and form of The Lord of the Rings could have supported the concept better than a trip to robot city but PJ & Co. went a different way and were well-praised (and awarded) for it. I have no idea if the fate of Leo in The Meatrix was that of a Christ.