Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

It's a different reading of movie-Frodo, likely possible more due to Elijah Wood's performance than to the writer's intentions. I think the writers were bored by the character of Frodo so built up other characters around him at Frodo's expense.

Mrs Figg wrote:''On the other hand Frodo in LOTR films retains his innocence until the very last minute with Gollum, and then its not a deliberate stabbing, but a desperate struggle which ends in tragedy for both of them. I have heard a lot of people moaning Frodo is a wimp, but I thought Frodo was an innocent gentle creature lost in the horror of Mordor. If he had been more assertive or aggressive or had defended himself as Bilbo does with a sword, for me it would have taken away the angelic part of Frodo. For me Frodo symbolizes the Light of Earendils Star made flesh, he IS the Light travelling into the Dark. His untainted soul is only tested to the limits of endurance at the End of All Things at the Crack of Doom. The power of the Ring blots out his light and he falls into darkness.''

So, Tolkien got Frodo wrong?

  I give up. I will leave you all to your moanings and nitpickery. I still maintain Frodo was perfect, and I havent heard an argument yet that even slightly says different.

One thing we can all agree on...Bill the Pony was totally miscast   

  he was probably brown when he should have been grey

Malickfan wrote:One thing we can all agree on...Bill the Pony was totally miscast.

Yep, has to start out rather hang-dog, then develop a personality.  We got nothing.  That pony they hired barely faxed it in.

Mrs Figg wrote:  I give up. I will leave you all to your moanings and nitpickery.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the following statement, unless it's saying what it looks like it's saying:

"If he had been more assertive or aggressive or had defended himself as Bilbo does with a sword, for me it would have taken away the angelic part of Frodo."

Book Frodo uses a sword to defend himself and/or others at least three times. Thus, by your logic, this takes away from the "angelic part" of Frodo (which is a fallacy, since Tolkien never suggested Frodo was part angel or the incarnation of Earendil's Star, which is a Silmaril).

So the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you are saying Peej's Frodo is indeed better than Tolkien's. Which is fine if you hold that opinion, but I wish you'd just come out and say it. The point is, the book and movie versions are fairly irreconcilable and that's a matter of record, not opinion (or moaning or nitpicking).

I still maintain Frodo was perfect, and I havent heard an argument yet that even slightly says different.

This statement goes both ways. No argument or statement you've made has made Elijah Wood's Frodo improve in my eyes at all, let alone convinced me he's "perfect".

halfwise wrote:

Malickfan wrote:One thing we can all agree on...Bill the Pony was totally miscast.

Yep, has to start out rather hang-dog, then develop a personality.  We got nothing.  That pony they hired barely faxed it in.

It looks like he was faxed in himself.

  he was probably brown when he should have been grey= Mrs Figg
What shade of grey ?   

Mrs Figg wrote:I am sorry you all cant enjoy the LOTR, you are missing out on some magical and wonderful films, its your loss I guess.

It's entirely subjective. So if we don't enjoy them we're not really losing anything.

azriel wrote:  he was probably brown when he should have been grey= Mrs Figg
What shade of grey ?   

Gandalf the.

Gandalf the Fabulous!

Radaghast wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:  I give up. I will leave you all to your moanings and nitpickery.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the following statement, unless it's saying what it looks like it's saying:

"If he had been more assertive or aggressive or had defended himself as Bilbo does with a sword, for me it would have taken away the angelic part of Frodo."

Book Frodo uses a sword to defend himself and/or others at least three times. Thus, by your logic, this takes away from the "angelic part" of Frodo (which is a fallacy, since Tolkien never suggested Frodo was part angel or the incarnation of Earendil's Star, which is a Silmaril).

So the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you are saying Peej's Frodo is indeed better than Tolkien's. Which is fine if you hold that opinion, but I wish you'd just come out and say it. The point is, the book and movie versions are fairly irreconcilable and that's a matter of record, not opinion (or moaning or nitpicking).

I still maintain Frodo was perfect, and I havent heard an argument yet that even slightly says different.

This statement goes both ways. No argument or statement you've made has made Elijah Wood's Frodo improve in my eyes at all, let alone convinced me he's "perfect".

I dont have to justify anything. Its my interpretation and I just dont have a narrow straightjacketed view on things, I choose my own meanings, I go with the flow and follow my own logic. I dont believe Tolkien would have objected to people using their imaginations. If you dont like that thats up to you, it doesnt bother me either way. I have noticed a rather unpleasant atmosphere on this thread almost heckling a bit like I used to get on TORn when I would offer my opinions of things only in reverse because this is a 'purists' forum, but it amounts to the same thing. Heckling of people because they refuse to agree with you

I think, to be fair to be fair to you Figg, it's perfectly possible to like both the Frodo character of the book and the film at the same time. Just as it's perfectly possible to find both good without saying one is better than the other.

It's not my view, but it's perfectly possible.  

Mrs Figg wrote:I dont have to justify anything. Its my interpretation and I just dont have a narrow straightjacketed view on things, I choose my own meanings, I go with the flow and follow my own logic. I dont believe Tolkien would have objected to people using their imaginations. If you dont like that thats up to you, it doesnt bother me either way. I have noticed a rather unpleasant atmosphere on this thread almost heckling a bit like I used to get on TORn when I would offer my opinions of things only in reverse because this is a 'purists' forum, but it amounts to the same thing. Heckling of people because they refuse to agree with you

Where did I ask you to justify anything? All I was asking was to clarify your statement. You don't want to do that, fine, I won't bother you about it anymore.

As for people using their imaginations, I don't see how it flies. You're basing your argument on something you're imagining?  There is absolutely nothing to support Frodo being a Silmaril or an angel. If you want to imagine that and use it as a basis for enjoying Elijah Wood's Frodo, okay, but you can't use it as an argument for Wood's Frodo being perfect.

Anyway, sorry if feel you're being heckled. I'm honestly not trying to heckle or badger anyone.

I may be able to help here Raddy, I may have walked down this road a few times already.

You like me prefer things laid out- Frodo is represented this way in this scene in the book- compare to film scene, and draw conclusions.

Mrs Figg is more of artistic soul, she is moved more by things which do not easily translate to the sort of comparative testing you or I might apply to the process.

And yes trying to get a comparative style response from her can be bloody infuriating (you wont get one because she does not view things in that manner, or at least, despite my best attempts Ive never got one   ).
so when she say things like Frodo is 100 percent perfect as well as teasing a little she is not meaning it in the very literal comparative style others might be, this leads to confusion (at least has done on my part) as I press for specifics about why she thinks this way, and causes Mrs Figg to feel she is being pressured and harassed.

Thats how I read it anyway judging on my previous attempts to illicit comparative based reasons for her views. Like I say in my experience her views are based on entirely different criteria to do more with artistic matters and the moods and feelings invoked than on comparison directly with book characters or situations.

Fair enough

In the end as far as enjoyment is concerned maybe those are as good standards as any.   

I think its how you're wired, the way my mind works it would never satisfy me, the comparative, critical part of my brain will always highlight the problems to much and demand answers and explanations.

For me, it's that as well as Peej's style. I think if I liked his style better (or at all), I might actually like the films more or at least dislike them less.

I do find it interesting, if we accept your premise, that Figg has made it clear that she certainly doesn't think the Hobbit works in the same way.

So maybe that's the main differnce between the Hobbit and the LotRs movies right there. The Hobbit lacks those qualities about the LotRs Figg appreciated as well as having the same faults you picked with the LotRs.   

Blimey Petty you actually understand me very well.   

Its true, I go off atmospheres and impressions. When I say, To me Frodo is like the star of Earendil, I dont mean literally, I cant back it up with facts, I just imagine he is, so he is perfect, as you would expect a Being of the Light would be. Tolkien says that Frodo was not entirely Hobbit, he was fey and as if he had Faerie blood, I imagine Galadriel tuning into this and that is why she gave Frodo the gift of Light. Its important to me that Frodo is how he is portrayed in the film, it matters to me that he is gentle, it fits my imagined Frodo, you know the one you imagine when you read the book. it may not be the literal actual Frodo, but its my Frodo.   

Blimey Petty you actually understand me very well.- Mrs Figg


Pure fluke I assure Mrs Figg- I was just at the right point of drunkenness. I may have passed that point, by about 2 barrels since then and begin demanding detailed proof for your feelings before long