PDA

View Full Version : Frodo's most annoying habit



Morgaphry
10-10-2002, 05:23 AM
I believe that Frodo was the MOST annoying person in FotR and he had several annoying aspects.
The most annoying, I think was the fact that he kept falling over.
And hobbits are supposed to be nimble
Anyone else have some annoyances?

Morgaphry

lilhobo
10-10-2002, 03:25 PM
falling over, winching, running away like a freakin coward

joxy
10-10-2002, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by lilhobo
falling over, winching, running away like a freakin coward
winching, freakin, what language are those words in and what do they mean?!
But yes, he IS pretty irritating a lot of the time!

lilhobo
10-10-2002, 06:13 PM
tis the language of Netspeak, git wit it duh!

joxy
10-10-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by lilhobo
tis the language of Netspeak, git wit it duh!
winching = wingeing ?? freakin = f***ing ??
duh! = Simpsons ??
Netspeak seems to be even more irritating than poor Frodo's mannerisms!

Mrs. Maggott
10-11-2002, 12:09 AM
Perhaps a better question is "what does the director do with the character that makes him irritating?" Poor Frodo/Wood never seems to get to stand in one place and emote. He is always being rushed from point "A" to point "B" and back again. At least Bilbo was allowed to stand still or move at a sedate pace doing things that made sense (making tea, for instance).

To me, it almost feels as if all of Jackson's patience was expended in the first part of the film (from the prologue to the party) and after that, the Director learned that his camera rental was running out so he had to rush everybody through the rest of the way. It reminded me of the knighting scene in The Court Jester (for those of you who have never seen the picture with Danny Kaye and Glynis Johns, rent it and you'll see what I mean!). Yea, verily, yea!

I think a lot of Frodo's "mannerisms" were put in by the Director to give us the illusion that he was developing the character - instead of ACTUALLY developing the character, something that takes time. But "mannerisms" do NOT a character make and frankly, I would have wished that Frodo had at least a little time to become real to me. Maybe TTT will be different, but I don't know. :confused:

Goldberry344
10-11-2002, 12:53 AM
*cries* he bites his nails

Mindy_O_Lluin
10-11-2002, 07:24 AM
Right! I bite mine too, but I can NEVER make them look THAT bad!
I also hate when he rolls his eyes back when he's taken over by the ring's temptation -- and I wish he wouldn't cringe so much, because it makes the gap in his teeth stand out.


:o :p :o :o :p :o :p :o :p :eek:

Talimon
10-11-2002, 09:47 AM
Frodo is highly uncredited, unfortunately. Elijaw Wood is exceptional with body-language. His money shot, when Aragorn calls him after they have just exited Moria, is masterful. His scene in the boat with Sam has ended up replacing Boromirs death as the climax of the movie for me. It's so powerful, the way PJ, Astin, and Wood put it together. The way Sam is willing to drown and die, rather then be separated from Frodo, is such an epic way to show thier relationship. And Woods look, when hearing Sam say, "I made a promise, Mr. Frodo. 'Don't you leave him, Samwise Gamgee', and I don't mean to, I don't mean to..." is extremely powerful as well.

His interplay with McKellen in Moria also brought goosebumps down my back. He has a look of complete awe and wonder after hearing Gandalf talk about the greater world and fate/destiny. The more I watch the movie the more I love Woods acting. I am dying to watch the Extended Edition, just to see more of this movie. I have a feeling that I'll have no trouble watching all 9-10 hours of this world when all the DVD's are finally out. After 3 hours I am practically ready to start the movie over again.

DGoeij
10-11-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by lilhobo
tis the language of Netspeak, git wit it duh!

Now that answer really proved you are a friendly person.

As far as I know, I think he/she tried to say wincing, as in jerkingly moving you facial muscles because of something unpleasent.

And in explaining freakin, you are pretty close Joxy, as far as I can be sure.

IMO, a lot of time in the movie, Frodo is more busy tripping over his own fee than doing anything substantial. I felt rather happy that he was pinned down by the Troll, even though I knew it wouldn't help much. All that just got in the way with the moments he did do some good and Frodo-like things. Like the talk to Gandalf in Moria.

lilhobo
10-11-2002, 01:35 PM
fee= feces?? :D

DGoeij
10-11-2002, 02:23 PM
That would explain a lot, but sounds rather stupid. A sure-footed Hobbit with keen senses that keeps on stepping in his....

joxy
10-11-2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Talimon
Frodo is highly uncredited, unfortunately. Elijaw Wood is exceptional with body-language. His money shot, when Aragorn calls him after they have just exited Moria, is masterful. His scene in the boat with Sam has ended up replacing Boromirs death as the climax of the movie for me. It's so powerful, the way PJ, Astin, and Wood put it together.
I have to defend EW to some extent - it's not so much the way he acts as what he is made to act. The Ford and Balin's tomb scenes are not real Frodo, but he acts out the new version of Frodo pretty well. In the Gandalf Moria, the post-Moria scene, and especially the very end, he IS Frodo, and does them very well, movingly indeed, as you say, T. The mannerisms that have been mentioned ARE irritating but presumably not his fault.
And that final scene allows me to say again that I think Sam's acting was the best of all throughout, small though his part has been so far. If he hadn't had to keep saying just "(Mr) Frodo!", he would have been perfect, and if Frodo had been allowed to be properly invisible in the boat at first the final scene WOULD have been a perfect climax.

Talimon
10-11-2002, 09:42 PM
Well, I think it would have looked slightly corny for Frodo to be invisible. I'm not going against Tolkiens version, just saying it wouldn't fit with the tone of the film. In the book they talk on the shore, not in the boat. I felt having Frodo be there, see Sam, and tell him that he's going to Mordor alone, was much more powerful then just having the boat move invisibly.

The "Mr. Frodo" bit wasn't that bad at all, considering that he actually says it a lot in the book (especially TTT and RotK). It shows his love for him, at least the tone of voice he uses.

I'm not so sure about Frodo stumbling, I never really noticed that actually. What part are you talking about? Maybe I've just blanked out, but I can't think of a single scene where he stumbles (other then the scene where all 4 hobbits stumble down the hill-side). Oh yeah, one more, up on Whether-top. That's it. Didn't stick out for me, personally.

lilhobo
10-11-2002, 09:56 PM
oh yeah, didnt stick out like a sore thumb. When all the other hobbits were trying to protect Frodo, what does Pj have him do???

drops his blade and stumble like the wuz that he should NOT have been !

Talimon
10-11-2002, 10:35 PM
To me the most interesting part of Frodo's charachter is when he gets weak and looses himself to the ring. Indeed, I never much cared for his "heroic" courage. The only point I really saw in him standing up to the riders was to draw a contrast as to how weak he eventually becomes. His courage wasn't the typical, which people seem to put so much weight on. His true achievement is his resistance to the rings evil, his struggle with it. The slight irony is that in the end he failed to resist it, and yet succeeded. Pity is ultimately what destroys the ring. For had Bilbo, Aragorn, Gandalf, the Wood Elves, the Elves in Lothlorien, Faramir, Frodo, and finally Sam not had pity on him and spared his life, the ring would never have been destroyed.

Ariana Undomiel
10-11-2002, 10:51 PM
I didn't find Frodo annoying at all. How odd that everyone else seems to find him so.

~Ariana

Mrs. Maggott
10-11-2002, 11:13 PM
I can understand Jackson's having Frodo slip and fall in the mountains. In the book, Tolkien is able to indicate Boromir's progressive seduction by the Ring, but the film does not have that ability. Frodo's "fall" and his loss of the Ring - which is then picked up by Boromir - gives us some insight into Boromir's state of mind. Remember, in the book, Frodo promised not to allow anyone even to TOUCH the Ring except members of the Fellowship and then ONLY IN GREAT NEED! Boromir's momentary possession of the Ring is such that Aragorn begins to draw his sword in anticipation that he will not willingly relinquish it.

I think that Jackson had little choice but to use such visual means to illustrate things that the book was able to impart much more easily. :)

joxy
10-11-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Talimon
Well, I think it would have looked slightly corny for Frodo to be invisible. I'm not going against Tolkiens version, just saying it wouldn't fit with the tone of the film.
The "Mr. Frodo" bit wasn't that bad at all, considering that he actually says it a lot in the book (especially TTT and RotK). It shows his love for him, at least the tone of voice he uses.
I'm not so sure about Frodo stumbling, I never really noticed that actually. What part are you talking about?
Why corny and out of tone? He uses the ring in other places in the film.
It needed only to be for a moment when Sam sees the boat, realises what is happening, and tries to reach it. It wouldn't have mattered where the dialogue took place.
It's not that he says it, it's that sometimes it's the ONLY word he gets!
Love doesn't come into it; loyalty and affection, quite different things.
Who mentioned stumbling? There's the scene in the snow I suppose.

Talimon
10-12-2002, 01:12 AM
Well, I'm just thinking about it in as it was in the movie, shot for shot, only with Frodo being invisible. It just wouldn't feel right. Besides, in the movie every second with the ring on seems like eternity. He couldn't have it on.

I think it adds to the power of the words that it happens on a boat, in the middle of the great river. The tides of fate are moving... I don't know, felt right to me. It would be kind of weak to have them just standing there on the beach. The fact that they are on a boat, slightly out of control, adds to the urgency.

joxy
10-12-2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Talimon
Well, I'm just thinking about it in as it was in the movie, shot for shot, only with Frodo being invisible. It just wouldn't feel right. Besides, in the movie every second with the ring on seems like eternity. He couldn't have it on.
I think it adds to the power of the words that it happens on a boat, in the middle of the great river. The tides of fate are moving... I don't know, felt right to me. It would be kind of weak to have them just standing there on the beach. The fact that they are on a boat, slightly out of control, adds to the urgency.
I think to have the boat apparently moving with no-one in it, just for a brief moment, would have been a GOOD bit of cinema. It certainly is a good moment in the book, but I genuinely try to distance myself from that and imagine how it could have been in the film, for the film's sake.
I totally agree about the dialogue being in the boat, out in the river; as I said before that could easily have been done.
Of course, to your "He couldn't have it on" I have to reply "He DID have it on"!

Talimon
10-12-2002, 09:24 PM
I know, I know...in the book. But in the movie there is the "ring world", so to speak, when Frodo puts the ring on. Whenever he puts it on he goes into a great struggle with Sauron. I think this was a great thing for PJ to include, and I think we'll see more of it in TTT and RotK. It shows Frodo really struggling, mentally, with Sauron himself. While Tolkien deffinitely alluded to this, PJ brings this to the forefront.

Mrs. Maggott
10-12-2002, 09:36 PM
However, I think that Mr. Jackson may have "painted himself into a corner" so to speak by making Frodo's interaction with the "Ring world" so devastating early on in the story.

If I remember, Frodo is aware of the lure of the Ring and also aware of the difference of the world AS HE PERCEIVES IT while he is wearing the it. However, he does not really have a tremendous increase in his interaction with this "wraith-world" until he receives the Morgul knife wound on Weathertop. After that, he begins to experience it just by bearing the Ring. But it is not until he reaches Morder that the Ring's influence is SO strong that just bearing (not wearing) it allows him to see what he calls a "wheel of fire" with his open eyes while the physical world begins to pale and disappear.

Now, remember, in the first film, in Bree, Frodo is virtually overwhelmed (as were the viewers) by the "Eye" when the Ring is on his finger in The Prancing Pony. This did not happen in the book (although he did disappear). One wonders how Mr. Jackson is going to "up the ante", so to speak, as Frodo goes on in the story. If the consequences of wearing the Ring - or even bearing it - were so awful early in the story, where is he going to go from here? :eek:

lilhobo
10-12-2002, 10:17 PM
frodo's stumbling on the mountain isnt a big deal, it gave PJ a chance to make up for deficiencies in characterisation by enhancing Boromir.

Its Frodo's slip-sliding away on Weathertop thats most annoying. The 3 other hobbits tried to protect him and all he can do is stumble and cower!!! Sam attacked the wraiths and got slung aside, the other two then sacrificed themselves and got slung aside as well.... and our hero Frodo, what does he do??...... hm

Talimon
10-13-2002, 09:00 AM
However, I think that Mr. Jackson may have "painted himself into a corner" so to speak by making Frodo's interaction with the "Ring world" so devastating early on in the story.


Well, I don't see how much he painted himself in. From interviews with PJ, it sounds as if he is going to make Frodo more and more tormented as the movies go along. Indeed, as is the case in the book, PJ has commented as to how by RotK we will be relating more to Sam then to Frodo. In my opinion the relationship between Frodo and the ring is the most intriguing aspect of the whole trilogy. Sure, Aragorns whole conquest is mythic in scope and all, but Frodo's epic is much more personal, yet at the same time universal in it's themes. Some of my favorite scenes from the book are from TTT, between Frodo and Gollum. They are both so affected by the ring that they can literally talk in thier own language to one another, alluding ot it, swearing to eachother by it... Sam (and thus us, the readers) are completely outside of this communication. I find this just intriguing. What is great is that one of the big aspects of the reshoots was to make the Frodo/Sam/Gollum triangle more "psychological". I am happy to see PJ delving into these deeper aspects, aspects that in my opinion are the real essence of LotR. If he can dig down and touch on those tormented moments between Frodo and Gollum, in my opinion he'll have done his job.

Mrs. Maggott
10-13-2002, 03:08 PM
True. Frodo is "affected" by the Ring from the beginning (remember, he had difficulty handing it to Gandalf and became quite upset when the Wizard threw it in the fire!). HOWEVER, he did NOT encounter the burning eye and a complete loss of his surroundings when he wore the Ring early in the story - at Bree, for instance. It wasn't until the incident with the Morgul knife that he begins to experience Ring-like changes in his surroundings (everything appears "misty" and empty) when he is not wearing the Ring and it certainly wasn't until Mordor that the sort of "burning eye" that we saw in Bree began to torment him - and, again that when he was NOT wearing the Ring, only bearing it.

Jackson would have been better served allowing the power of the Ring to "grow" rather than starting out in Bree with a truly horrific vision brought about by Frodo wearing the Ring. Again, I have to ask, after that, where can you go? True, he can show (through the actor), Frodo suffering the torment of the Ring upon his mind, but if he goes into graphics, he has left himself very little "wiggle room". :cool:

joxy
10-13-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Talimon
I know, I know...in the book. But in the movie there is the "ring world", so to speak, when Frodo puts the ring on. Whenever he puts it on he goes into a great struggle with Sauron. I think this was a great thing for PJ to include....While Tolkien definitely alluded to this, PJ brings this to the forefront.
Yes, I take your point, but I most definitely do NOT think it was a great thing for PJ to include, ie change, at this stage.
As others have said in effect, if Frodo is in so deep so soon in the story how is PJ going to make his situation more and more dire?
As before, I really can't see into PJ's mind as to why he makes these changes.
Is this just an idea of yours, or do you know for sure that PJ has this deeper concept of a ring world? Of course, I'd noted the drastic effects that the ring has in the film, but thought they were just PJ indulging himself, as he does in the wizard fight and the orc-birthing, with the sort of vivid scenes that I understand he used in his previous films.
As you say, T alluded to the idea, but he applied it sparingly: specifically F puts on the ring to escape Boromir and sees visions and eventually realises the Eye becoming aware of him, but that is because he is on the Hill of Seeing, and as soon as he comes down, and goes to the boats, he puts it on again, and experiences no drastic effects.
I am afraid I found the drastic effects in the film rather tiresome when repeated, and can't imagine just how much more drastic they are going to be as your understanding, or hypothesis, of PJ's intentions is realised. As someone has said, I have the feeling he has painted his way into a corner..

joxy
10-14-2002, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by lilhobo
Its Frodo's slip-sliding away on Weathertop thats most annoying. The 3 other hobbits tried to protect him and all he can do is stumble and cower
He has to do a pretty fair job of cowering in the tomb chamber in Moria also. Instead of stabbing the cave troll, he has to find a pillar to play hide and seek with the troll, and then crouch in a corner while the others do all the work. Why?, I ask myself (and T.!).

Mrs. Maggott
10-14-2002, 01:11 AM
I can hardly blame Frodo for avoiding battle with a cave troll who is twice the size of Aragorn and Boromir!

In the book (which from now on I will from now on refer to as: "itb") the troll cave(s) do not take part in the battle in the Chamber of Records. For one thing, one doubts that there would have been much room for two cave trolls, a ton of orcs and the Fellowship in that rather small chamber. The trolls do appear in the lower caverns to place a large stone across the burning chasm so that the orcs (and the Balrog) can cross to attack the Fellowship but I believe it is the Balrog who attempts to open the door in the chamber.

Nevertheless, Frodo's game of hide-and-seek with the troll was a good bit of cinematic "drollity" combining as it did an element of silliness with an element of suspense. I enjoyed that scene much more than the silliness of Arwen sneaking about with a sword in the night. :p

Mrs. Maggott
10-14-2002, 01:13 AM
!! Did I say troll caves??? My God, this cold is worse than I thought! :rolleyes:

joxy
10-14-2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the book (which from now on I will from now on refer to as: "itb") the troll cave(s) do not take part in the battle in the Chamber of Records. For one thing, one doubts that there would have been much room for two cave trolls....
I believe it is the Balrog who attempts to open the door in the chamber.
Nevertheless, Frodo's game of hide-and-seek with the troll was a good bit of cinematic "drollity" combining as it did an element of silliness with an element of suspense.
One troll does take part in Moria, and Frodo DOES attack it. He is the first to attack; he stabs it in the foot as it, certainly not the Balrog, opens the door, and that sets off the rest to fight it and the orcs.
Were there two trolls? I don't recall that.
And including "drollity" and "silliness" in that scene was a "good" idea?
Should we have had something like it as the Titanic went down?

Mrs. Maggott
10-14-2002, 05:52 PM
I thought it was an orc, not a troll, whom Frodo stabbed when it thrust its foot through the door to the chamber and that the two trolls appeared later in the lower chamber carrying the stone that was to be used to bridge the flaming chasm.

Remember, when the company reached the first hall after their flight down the stairs from the back door of the chamber, they were on the right side of this chasm filled with flame (the side with the bridge) while the orcs, trolls and the balrog were on the wrong side. When the balrog crossed the bridge, the flames once again ignited its "mane" etc.

(I do wish I could find my book(s); it is so difficult recalling this from memory even if I did read it upmpteen times.) :confused: :rolleyes:

lilhobo
10-14-2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I can hardly blame Frodo for avoiding battle with a cave troll who is twice the size of Aragorn and Boromir!

Nevertheless, Frodo's game of hide-and-seek with the troll was a good bit of cinematic "drollity" combining as it did an element of silliness with an element of suspense. I enjoyed that scene much more than the silliness of Arwen sneaking about with a sword in the night. :p

thats a bit of cinematics as cliched as any PJ could find for added suspense, but u could it it coming a mile a way. there were other fighters there, so there no need for frodo to fight, now that he had a quest to accomplish.

Just as Bilbo's voice-over for frodo, the speech about leave the shire and leave home, was another cinematic touch that should be included.

HOWEVER, on weathertop, the contrasting action of the 4 hobbits, belittles the character JRR gave to Frodo

Ascamaciliel
10-23-2002, 10:26 PM
i thought Elijah Wood did a great job, couldn't have picked anyone better, IMO. the only thing that irritated me was his falling over. but i would probably fall over a lot too if i were faced with a ringwraith, or a troll that's 20 times me size.