How much Frodo grew...

[Lathriel]

I agree Encaitare. I think Elijah was only about 18 or 19 when they began filming LOTR.

Might I add Elijah is one of the few Kiddie stars that didn't dissapear after he was grown-up like most do.

[ninlaith]

Yeah he was only 17 when he began his role as Frodo. And it is amazing how he has lasted so long. He had a very good career when he was just a kid and then he just disappeared for awhile. Then he took on some very unmeaningful roles which didn't suit him at all. I think his performance as Frodo could really boost his career. He brought so much to the character and was able to show the audience Frodo's emotional growth and many of Frodo's other characteristics throughout his journey.

[elfwishes999]

Originally Posted by ninlaith

It wasn't that Frodo was weak, mind you, it was more like he was burdened. A hobbit never encounters any sort of real danger in the Shire and Frodo had no time what so ever to be broken into this new evil. He absolutlely grew from the experience. I think it just made him a little wiser about his surroundings.

THANK YOU!!!! for once, someone sees the movie the way i did

[Morsul the Dark]

Perhaps one could say Frodo grew but I think it was merely he was ecoming like gollum sly inhumane untrusting

Sam trully grew he became strong enough for them both especially when this line comes up "I can't carry it for you but I can carry you!!"

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think the story of Frodo in the movies, as well as the story as a whole (who am I kidding? The world itself would be much, much better) if it were not for the ridiculous lembas saga in RotK.

How could you possibly say that Frodo grew when he got fooled by a scheme that a normal six year-old could see through?

[ninlaith]

That part made me so angry. The entire part was all of the directors poetic licence. I understand directors want to make a film their own but not change it completly. There could have been so much more focus on Frodo and Sam's friendship if they hadn't added that stuff. That part in real life would have been a matter of if Frodo trusted Sam, not the fact that Gollum did not eat lembas. There is no way that part could have been considered growth for Frodo as Eomer said. If Tolkien could be mad at any part in any of those movies I think it would be that part of ROTK.

[Encaitare]

Yeah, that part was more than a bit irritating. It did an excellent job of showing how much the Ring was taking hold of Frodo, that he would turn on Sam, but firstly, it was somewhat unnecessary, and secondly, Sam never would have turned back. I don't know why finding the lembas on the cliff below would suddenly make him turn around, but oh well. PJ did an amazing job with the movies and I guess a couple of major departures from canon can be excused. A slightly imperfect movie is better than no movie at all, right?

[Morsul the Dark]

Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question)

[Encaitare]

Heh heh, indeed you are right, Morsul. Why can't people just watch a forking movie? What's with all the questions? ::rips hair out::

[Essex]

ok, we're going off topic, but here's my two peneth worth re frodo/sam.

It all boils down to the effect PJ wanted when Frodo has been captured by Shelob. In the book, the reason why Sam doesn't get to frodo in time is because he was busy dealing with gollum.

Now, cinematically wise, how do we show a fast moving action sequence with sam and gollum, and a slow moving, stealthy capture of frodo by shelob at the same time? I don't think you can.

So, to get around this, PJ had frodo fight gollum (instead of sam fighting him), then realising his mistake re sam too late, and THEN being hunted down, slowly (and to me this is the most scariest bit in the movie) and then bitten before being bound in her web.

But to have this, we can't have Sam in the equation. Therefore, jackson gets Frodo to send Sam away. Now please note here, Sam is only going down a few steps whilst he is in shock and sadness at being sent away. He falls most of the way. He then sees the lembas, which to me does not change his mind, just makes him more angry.

And to add to this, we have a great shot where Sam turns up, with Frodo's sword which he left in the webs, to save the day (kind of!)......

I'd lay a pound to a penny this will be like the reason pj gives us in the commentary for changing these scenes. we'll find out in decemeber......

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

True, but those changes make gains while, at the same, they cause more problems.

[Essex]

oh yes, they cause a lot of problems, but that doesn't seem to put jackson off throughout these films, does it! I'm just trying to look at it from a filmaker's perspective.

ps I think it is Phillipa Boyens who is the main driving force behind the scripts. In the interviews, especially on the tt ee, she is the one who comes across most strongly when talking about the changes to the books.

PS , I finally heard the commentary from jackson around why they had frodo showing the nazgul the ring. They said they took it from another scene later on in the book (you know, where frodo is tempted to get out the ring when he sees / hears the witch king outside minas morgul). This actually makes me feel a bit better, as I hadn't twigged it, and it now works better for me. Jackson also subtly seems to jokingly/sarcastically make a note that putting in this scene here didn't create any problems for the viewing public!!!!

[Lathriel]

What I like about the EE is that it is explained in the documentaries why they changed parts of the book in the movie.
It helps me see the problems PJ had to deal with plus through the documentaries I began to gain respect for what they did. Even if the movies aren't true to the book word for word the director and writers at least have an explanation for it.