🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Frodo is 50... not 20...

Gandalf_White

Gandalf lives!
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
Location
sleeping
I aggree with the idea that the Ring made Frodo look young. I wonder if that is what PJ thought. I think a lot of the actors looked young. But hey you can't have a 60-100 year old man play somebody like Aragorn can you?
 

Legolas_lover12

Mentally Insane
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
Location
here ...
yeah, and half the people that saw the movie just went to see cate blanchett, or elijah wood, or orlando bloom.......................so they were just trying to get a bigger audeince.
 

LadyGaladriel

Lady Of The Golden Wood
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Messages
315
Reaction score
2
Location
Lorien!!!!
Outwardly he retained the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens

If he had kept the ring then he would start to feel as though he was butter stretched on too much bread. He wouldn't live but just exsit. what a sorrowfull existance
 

mrrick

New Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I think you've missed Tolkien's point: wisdom comes with maturity. While Frodo may continue to appear youthful, at age 50 hobbits - and humans - if they've paid attention to life know more of themselves and of the world, and they are more modest in their claims about knowledge and ability. The relationship between Frodo and Sam only makes sense with this difference in age. The movie, I think, went more for audience identification than it did with faithfulness to the text or to life.
 

Elanor2

Registered User
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
I think you've missed Tolkien's point: wisdom comes with maturity. While Frodo may continue to appear youthful, at age 50 hobbits - and humans - if they've paid attention to life know more of themselves and of the world, and they are more modest in their claims about knowledge and ability. The relationship between Frodo and Sam only makes sense with this difference in age. The movie, I think, went more for audience identification than it did with faithfulness to the text or to life.
Agree. Plus there is another point. PJ did not want to have a gap of 17 years between Bilbo's farewell party and Frodo's departure, so he made it appear as if happened within a couple of years maximum. That means that Frodo in the movie was not 50 at all!

Problem solved for PJ, grinding of teeth for those of us who would have liked a bit more of faithfulness to the books...
 

Olorgando

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
253
Location
Germany
A little bit of throwing numbers (or ages) around. When “Fellowship” premiered in very late 2001:

Elijah Wood was 20, playing a 50-year-old Frodo (when the quest actually started) who looked 33 (or maybe Frodo was 35 maximum by PJ’s (hidden) “time line”)
Sean Astin was 30 playing 38-year-old Sam
Dominic Monaghan was 25 playing 36-year-old Merry
Billy Boyd was 33 (!) playing 28-year-old Pippin, the young runt of the lot.

Standing things on their head pretty seriously, PJ was.

Having Frodo, Sam and Merry look like they were similar in age due to the One Ring’s effect on Frodo would be OK. But Frodo looking like by far the youngest of the lot, and Pippin not even close to that, which he should have, looks like a serious casting foul-up – if one takes the book statement about ages seriously. Now we know PJ did not take some (many?) parts of the book seriously (not that he didn’t take any of it seriously), so not doing so here may have made some sort of sense to him.

The point was raised that perhaps some actor’s or actress’s box-office drawing power may have influenced casting to the degree that it would contravene a character’s “book canon”. I confess that I’m way too ignorant of most “filmographies” to be able to judge this. Christopher Lee (duh!), Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, John Rhys-Davies, and Brad Dourif are the only people I could say having recognized with certainty from appearances elsewhere (which shows you there are plenty of films pre 2001 that I did not see). But certainly all “blockbuster” names were absent. Stallone. Schwarzenegger. Hanks. Cruise. Hoffman. Connery. Etc. (I’m leaving out Streep & Co. because the films by nature had far fewer female roles). And with the cast invariably being referred to as an “ensemble cast”, so very much not a “star vehicle”, I have trouble figuring out how this box-office drawing power could have figured in much.

(Orlando Bloom in “The Hobbit” is of course an entirely different matter!) ;)
 

Squint-eyed Southerner

Skulking near Archet
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
1,210
Reaction score
1,149
Location
Virginia, USA
The casting choices didn't bother me; I thought the hobbits were fine. Faramir was a little beefier than my own picture of him, and Sean Bean a bit slighter, but that's minor. Of the things that annoy me about the films, the cast is so far down the list as to be invisible.

Think what might have been; Olorgando mentioned some Big Names. I recall when the movie project was being bandied about, there a fan push for Aragorn to be played by, yes, Tom Cruise. Think about that.

Way back in the 60's, during the first great Tolkien wave, there was talk of a film, with similar arguments about casting in the early fanzines. In a magazine interview, Ringo Starr publicly begged for the part of Sam. And Barliman recently reminded me of something I'd forgotten from those days: I'd (admittedly rather facetiously) suggested Michael J. Pollard for Aragorn.
fblietleygdqlfgb.jpg

Well, it made as much sense as Kirk Douglas. Or John Wayne.
 
Last edited:

Olorgando

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
253
Location
Germany
I have dim memories of the Beatles having been interested in LoTR.
„A Hard Day's Night“ meets LoTR – I don’t know; for this angle, I’d go straight to the masters, Monty Python. LoTR done like “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. (For youngsters browsing here for whom “Monty Python” rings no bells: it would be a spoof. An extreme spoof!)

As for Michael J. Pollard, a role name popped up immediately for him when I saw that picture: Ted Sandyman, the miller’s son!

For Aragorn, I can think of one actor who would make a believable Aragorn, though not at his current age:
Liam Neeson. Something of a cross between his roles as Qui-Gon Jinn in “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” and as Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul in “Batman begins” (two films I actually have on DVD!).
 

CirdanLinweilin

The Wandering Wastrel
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
795
Reaction score
411
Location
Mission Viejo, California
The casting choices didn't bother me; I thought the hobbits were fine. Faramir was a little beefier than my own picture of him, and Sean Bean a bit slighter, but that's minor. Of the things that annoy me about the films, the cast is so far down the list as to be invisible.

Think what might have been; Olorgando mentioned some Big Names. I recall when the movie project was being bandied about, there a fan push for Aragorn to be played by, yes, Tom Cruise. Think about that.

Way back in the 60's, during the first great Tolkien wave, there was talk of a film, with similar arguments about casting in the early fanzines. In a magazine interview, Ringo Starr publicly begged for the part of Sam. And Barliman recently reminded me of something I'd forgotten from those days: I'd (admittedly rather facetiously) suggested Michael J. Pollard for Aragorn.
View attachment 6002

Well, it made as much sense as Kirk Douglas. Or John Wayne.
Or Townsend before Mortensen replaced him. Funnily, enough Viggo was off-set more book Aragorn with his ranger antics than on-screen.

CL
 

Olorgando

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
253
Location
Germany
Or Townsend before Mortensen replaced him. Funnily, enough Viggo was off-set more book Aragorn with his ranger antics than on-screen.
CL
Had to check up on (Stuart) Townsend, as the name rings no bells. Spontaneous reaction was, "well, they did lots of stuff with prosthetics with John Rhys Davies …"
Far too young is my impression. Viggo was 43 when "Fellowship" was released, Townsend, 14 years younger, would have been 29! Now I have no idea whatsoever about his acting abilities, but my gut feeling is getting Viggo instead of Townsend was a bit of luck for the films (a "baby-faced" Aragorn to go with a "baby-faced" Frodo - that could well have been serious hackle-raising territory!) 😠
 

CirdanLinweilin

The Wandering Wastrel
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
795
Reaction score
411
Location
Mission Viejo, California
Had to check up on (Stuart) Townsend, as the name rings no bells. Spontaneous reaction was, "well, they did lots of stuff with prosthetics with John Rhys Davies …"
Far too young is my impression. Viggo was 43 when "Fellowship" was released, Townsend, 14 years younger, would have been 29! Now I have no idea whatsoever about his acting abilities, but my gut feeling is getting Viggo instead of Townsend was a bit of luck for the films (a "baby-faced" Aragorn to go with a "baby-faced" Frodo - that could well have been serious hackle-raising territory!) 😠
That is for sure.




CL
 

Thread suggestions

Top