Is Sam Justly done

[Eönwë]

I don't think they show Sam properly in the movies. They portray him as the stupid, fat (If I recall, it was Frodo that was fat in the boook at the beginning) hobbit. In the book he is the first hobbit to kill an orc and especially in Cirith Ungul, he kills many orcd. Inthe movie they make him a slightly comical figuire, especially the fighting with pots and pans in Moria. Does anyone agree with this or is just me?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I don't think they show Sam properly in the movies. They portray him as the stupid, fat (If I recall, it was Frodo that was fat in the boook at the beginning) hobbit. In the book he is the first hobbit to kill an orc and especially in Cirith Ungul, he kills many orcd. Inthe movie they make him a slightly comical figuire, especially the fighting with pots and pans in Moria. Does anyone agree with this or is just me?

Despite the joking between MovieLegolas and MovieGimli, I don't think that the actual number of killings of orcs reflects a significant quality of characterisation in Tolkien. There are the comments about numbers of killings in battle in CoH and elsewhere in the early writings, but those are not comical and derive from a different cultural frame of reference. In LotR, heroism is portrayed using a different scheme of values.

On the other hand, I doubt if any of us really knows if Same was justly done. That question could best be answered I suspect by Rosie Cotton.

[Alonna]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I don't think they show Sam properly in the movies. They portray him as the stupid, fat (If I recall, it was Frodo that was fat in the boook at the beginning) hobbit. In the book he is the first hobbit to kill an orc and especially in Cirith Ungul, he kills many orcd. Inthe movie they make him a slightly comical figuire, especially the fighting with pots and pans in Moria. Does anyone agree with this or is just me?

Are you sure this isn't Bakshi's portrayal of Sam you're talking about and not Jackson's? While Jackson's Sam wasn't getting his application ready for MENSA, he was shown to have a sense of wisdom, unlike Bakshi's Sam who lacked anything even close to resembling a brain. While there are many things that Jackson can be critiqued about, I don't think that he can be accused of portraying Sam as incredibly stupid.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I don't think they show Sam properly in the movies. They portray him as the stupid, fat (If I recall, it was Frodo that was fat in the boook at the beginning) hobbit. In the book he is the first hobbit to kill an orc and especially in Cirith Ungul, he kills many orcd. Inthe movie they make him a slightly comical figuire, especially the fighting with pots and pans in Moria. Does anyone agree with this or is just me?

Um...did you actually watch the same movie as everyone else? I'm sorry but virtually nothing in your post makes sense.



Sam was never portrayed as 'stupid'. Foolish sometimes but it's the same in the books. For the most part he was shown as dedicated and loyal to Frodo.

Sam in the books *was* somewhat fat.

In the books Sam never killed 'many orcs' at Cirith Ungol. In fact all he does is wound a single orc who then dies as he slips on the ladder.

Sam in the book was meant to be a slightly comical figure.

Sam in the book was shown to be very passionate about his pots and pans so it's not too ridiculous that he could use them in a fight.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

On the other hand, I doubt if any of us really knows if Same was justly done. That question could best be answered I suspect by Rosie Cotton.

hahahaha

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Sam in the books *was* somewhat fat.

I could of swore I read that he was too, in the books, I recall reading Gollum calling him a "fat hobbit" in the pass up Cirith Ungol. Am I imagining this? Can you cite from the book?

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I happen to like the PJ portrayal of my dearest Samwise...but umm I also think that he is very good looking though! But thats a different story. But I do think that Sean Astin is a pretty good Samwise, but nobody is going to be a perfect Sam. And I do think that Rose Cotton would know quite a bit about him!

[Laurinquë]

Originally Posted by TheGreatElvenWarrior

I happen to like the PJ portrayal of my dearest Samwise...but umm I also think that he is very good looking though! But thats a different story. But I do think that Sean Astin is a pretty good Samwise, but nobody is going to be a perfect Sam. And I do think that Rose Cotton would know quite a bit about him!

Hm, well I rather like Sam as he is shown in the movies, I think he is really good looking too! Lovely Samwise. But I can see the point, he is not portryaed perfectly, but in comparison to other the other movie characters he is just about right.

[Gwathagor]

I thought Sam was the only character in the movie that was spot on.

[Groin Redbeard]

Sam I think was very well done, probably the best character in the movies. Peter Jackson nailled Sam's loyalty to helping Frodo dead on.

As to the fighting in Moria with pots and pans I don't see how that runes Sam's potrayle as a good hobbit. PJ did that to almost everybody even my favorite character Gimli, and that didn't bother me too much. In fact it seemed to make it a little more relatable to the characters.

Over all I think PJ, as well as Tolkien, tried to cast Sam as representing the ordinary man. Someone who isn't brilliantly smart or strong, but rather someone who has love and trust. And that is exactly what Tolkien and Peter Jackson accomplish in both their works.

[Boromir88]

I always thought, of the hobbits, Frodo was the one who drew the short straw.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Laurinquë

Hm, well I rather like Sam as he is shown in the movies, I think he is really good looking too! Lovely Samwise. But I can see the point, he is not portryaed perfectly, but in comparison to other the other movie characters he is just about right.

Oh you know exatly how I feel about Hansom don't you! But yes, they don't get everything exactly how they should be, but it was not too bad!

[skip spence]

Yep, Sam was portrayed fairly well in the Movies. The only major difference from the book is his status as socially equal to Merry and Pippin in the Movies. In the books, Frodo, as well as Pippin and Merry, were from rich and important upper class families. Sam was 'just' a gardener working for Frodo. This is clearly reflected in their social intercourse, where Merry and Pippin threat Frodo as an equal, often joking and taking the mick out of him, while Sam wouldn't dream speaking against his "master".
He's the faithful servant.

[Sauron the White]

from skip spence

Sam was portrayed fairly well in the Movies. The only major difference from the book is his status as socially equal to Merry and Pippin in the Movies. In the books, Frodo, as well as Pippin and Merry, were from rich and important upper class families. Sam was 'just' a gardener working for Frodo. This is clearly reflected in their social intercourse, where Merry and Pippin threat Frodo as an equal, often joking and taking the mick out of him, while Sam wouldn't dream speaking against his "master".
He's the faithful servant.

This is an excellent observation. And very true. Being an American, I have always found it disturbing and somehwat confusing that every other British book or film somehow, someway ends up being about social class. In something like the excellent REMAINS OF THE DAY its well and good because that is the essence of the story. But from a non-Britishers perspective it is way overused in too many books and films. Here in America, everything was supposed to be structured to negate the entire idea of social class and placing people in a heirarchy and comparing them as better or lesser than others. I imagine that New Zealand, is similar. When the books were adapted by someone other than a British director, it was probably inevitable that the strict social class boundaries would be lessened somewhat- both because of their own upbringing and as a nod to the potential worldwide audience.

Sam is still in a serving position and not the equal of "Mr. Frodo" as he is nearly always adressed by him. But it was good he was not turned into some sort of Gunga Din character.

[Finduilas]

I would say that Sam was well done in almost all respects. I don't like, however, how violent he is towards Gollum, but I suppose, it being film not book, there was no other easy way to show his dislike. But I do like the fact that he said something to Gollum after the whole Faramir thing, trying to explain.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from skip spence
This is an excellent observation. And very true. Being an American, I have always found it disturbing and somehwat confusing that every other British book or film somehow, someway ends up being about social class.

It must be said though that Tolkien didn't in any way portray the upper classes as any better or more worthy than the 'commoners'. While Sam always knew his place, Frodo never looked down on him and always encouraged him (now I'm talking about the books). And Sam eventually ends up as the major of the Shire, if I remember correctly. After all, class climbing is another age old English tradition.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This is an excellent observation. And very true. Being an American, I have always found it disturbing and somehwat confusing that every other British book or film somehow, someway ends up being about social class. In something like the excellent REMAINS OF THE DAY its well and good because that is the essence of the story. But from a non-Britishers perspective it is way overused in too many books and films. Here in America, everything was supposed to be structured to negate the entire idea of social class and placing people in a heirarchy and comparing them as better or lesser than others. I imagine that New Zealand, is similar. When the books were adapted by someone other than a British director, it was probably inevitable that the strict social class boundaries would be lessened somewhat- both because of their own upbringing and as a nod to the potential worldwide audience.

Sam is still in a serving position and not the equal of "Mr. Frodo" as he is nearly always adressed by him. But it was good he was not turned into some sort of Gunga Din character.

I don't get it. . . You don't like class and heirarchy and therefor you want them out of the movies?
Anyways I do belive that most countries are not in denial about social classes, so maybe it was left out to please the american and a few other nations viewers. . .

I think I shall stay out of the actuall discution of this thread as I always hated Sam. . . he really annoys me.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I think I shall stay out of the actuall discution of this thread as I always hated Sam. . . he really annoys me.

*gasp* How can you hate Sam?! In the books he's the best, most adorable, couragous, humble, best...oh, I've already said that. He's my favorite character, in the books.

In the movies he was one of the best adaptions in the first movie, but by the time the third came out, they really missed their mark and turned him into a brutal, angry hobbit who was frustrated with the journey and with Frodo and took all his frustration out on Gollum.

I think they should have kept the class difference and the hierarchy in the movies, especially with Sam. He calls him Mr. or Master Frodo mayby three times in the first movie, and then not at all in the others. Well, okay, more than three times, but most of the time, he just calls him Frodo. Whereas in the books...lol...maybe he calls him Frodo a couple times, but usually it's Mr. Frodo or just plain Master, which, in my (humble) opinion makes him so much a nicer, better character, because he is a servant and knows it and wants to be. Talk about a run on sentence.

So, Is Sam Justly Done? Halfway so and halfway not. Certainly better than Gimli or Aragorn or Frodo, but not as well as Boromir and Eowyn.

[Sauron the White]

from Rune

I don't get it. . . You don't like class and heirarchy and therefor you want them out of the movies?

I do not believe I said that. Here is what I said about adapting the class distinctions part of the book to film

it was probably inevitable that the strict social class boundaries would be lessened somewhat-

[Meriadoc1961]

I had fewer problems with Sam in the movies than I did other characters, but I thought they had him being too cruel to Gollum in the movies. That was my biggest complaint.

Merry

[Gwathagor]

That's true.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I actually liked Sam a lot in the movies. I didn't get any sense of fat and brainless. He was a bit heavy, but he was actually the closest to hobbit-shaped as Tolkien envisioned them, I think. He generally didn't come off as stupid as much as uneducated, and he had that intelligence of the heart and trueness of spirit that I loved so much in the book.

I do think that he's too violent to Gollum, though. Most everyone is, in the movies. I guess that perhaps distrust isn't interesting unless someone acts on it?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

On the other hand, I doubt if any of us really knows if Same was justly done. That question could best be answered I suspect by Rosie Cotton.

I didn't mean that way!!!

Anyway, yes, I do think the social class has been removed, but this can also be said for everyone in the movies (Almost)