Frodo: Books Vs Movies 

I staunchly disagree with the thought that Sam is like a father figure in the movies. I don't see that at all. Just a steadfast, loyal friend, and I never noticed any age difference in them.

Elijah Wood actually celebrated his 18th birthday on set. He also jokingly commented that it was his first time playing a 50 year old. So although Frodo's age may not have been specifically mentioned in the movies, the actor was at least aware of it.

Funny how views are different. From movie point I got the impression that Frodo and Sam are peers, almost brothers. No father-son-relationship. They look about the same age, they drink together, they party together. And before Bree, Frodo is definitely the leader and the most mature. And Sam looks up to him. The shift in that relationship comes later.

Regarding Frodo's age, a 33 year old hobbit is the equivalent of a 21 year old human and Frodo came into possession of the ring on his 33rd birthday, and like Bilbo barely aged afterwards. So even though he was fifty, he looked like a young man.

I also think that the ring not being actually destroyed until Frodo grabbing Sam’s arm, signaling that he finally LETS the ring go, feels satisfying for the movie.

One thing to note is that Frodo doesn’t actually tackle Gollum off the cliff. They fight over the ring on the edge, and they both fall off in the struggle. But Gollum, who is single-mindedly obsessed with the ring, holds onto it and falls into the lava, whereas Frodo abandons the ring, and grabs the ledge to save himself, demonstrating that Frodo was not completely lost to the allure of the ring

It interesting I feel like the removal of the Scouring of the Shire does rob movie Frodo of something. I think the removal of the SotS was the right call for the movie, but without it the movie doesn't really have the time or ability to display Frodo's hard won wisdom and growth like the book does. When Frodo stop Sam from slaying Saruman in the Shire and tells him he will be released in the hopes he might one day find his way back to what he once was, Frodo fully embraces and embodies the lessons of Pity and Mercy that Gandalf taught him. That part, and Frodo refusing to draw a weapon during the fighting in the Shire, also starts to give you a view into a Frodo who is just so damn TIRED. Tired of the violence, the pain, the evil in the world.... the Frodo that will ultimately have to sail West for a chance at peace.

I think that one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, that Gollum falls, in the books, is that oath he swore on the Ring.

I once had a mini debate with someone who thought Frodo from the movies was useless, and all his friends were dope rock stars in comparison. I had to remind them that it's revealed that Frodo is writing this story as a framing device in the movies, and as such is sacrificing his own glory for theirs out of love and humility.

I reread the books recently. One thing that bothers me with Frodo & Sam in the movies is that they are so naive regarding Gollum, especially Frodo. In the books, they have no choice but to follow him but they discuss all the time about how they distrust him. They aren't surprised that this evil creature is evil, Frodo doesn't have the syndrome of "I can fix him".

To use the military metaphor, I would posit that the dynamic between Frodo and Sam in the movie would be more like that between a newly-commissioned second lieutenant and a relatively more experienced sergeant.

One thing that modern readers don't really understand about Frodo and Sam's relationship in the books is that their love for each other isn't sexual. Tolkien was born in the 1890s. Relationships between people of the same sex were seen differently back then. Young women would share a bed on a regular basis, sisters and close friends. Young men seem to have done similar things. A man expressing love for another man was common, and purely platonic. Homosexuals were frowned on by society. Oscar Wilde was taken to court by a wealthy family for allegedly corrupting their son into a homosexual relationship. Besides the fact that Sam was married to a Hobbit lass named Rose Cotton, Sam spoke of his deep love for her when he expressed to Frodo his confusion over whether to move in with Frodo or marry Rosie. When Frodo said that he could just marry Rosie and both could move into Bag End together, Sam said it was exactly what he was thinking of doing. In some ways, Peter Jackson's portrayal of Frodo may have watered that down, in an attempt to avoid confusing people as to their sexual orientation.

i know this is a year old video... BUT I was just on a lotr binge (yet again) and i found this video. i have to add: Movie Frodo (have not read the books) is my ultimate hero. *BECAUSE* i see his character being kind of a metaphor for someone going through depression/anxiety/ ptsd/grief7mental illness etc... and how people like that, who has an invisible scar, and a heavy burden they carry, often gets overlooked how strong they actually are. because you can't see the strength in the same way, as we can with Sam. because it's all inside. yet, he has the strength to keep walking. he even runs up the mountain the last bit. He had a will to see this through, even though it nearly took his life, and in one way, it did. he tried to heal, but years later he still had that burden. the wound. the scar. and he had to leave and die peacefully. the inner strength it takes to just get up, and not die or fall into the void, when you have all the things listen above, it requires the biggest strength. yet, so many in the fandom, gives frodo sh!t for being "weak" or failing once he is inside mount doom. ONE weak moment does not undo your character. Just mirroring the real world, of how people treat someone who is sick with something they can't see, vs maybe someone who broke their leg or has cancer, or something easy to SEE. you are treated with respect and help, but NOT if you carry PTSD or grief or mental illness. so in this way, frodo is a huge inspiration to me. i don't see him as weak at all. The ring could represent being hit with depression. and naturally the person carrying this "ring" will look weaker, than the friend walking beside you, not having the ring, and just watching you fall into the rings power - depression. is the friend then stronger ? is sam stronger bc he is beside the ringbearer? no. but he gets all the credit sometimes. must must must pull myself together and read the books one day soon 🌺

Ive always loved the simplicity and lack of drama in gollums falling in the book. Its a reminder of how anticlimactic that life is. Things simply... happen...then its onto the next thing.

I feel like it needs to be noted that the term for the servant to a military officer was "Batman." Samwise Gamgee is the Batman.

In the books the Ring is destroyed by its own power. Early on Frodo tells Gollum that if he ever tries to take it Frodo will put on the Ring and order him to cast himself in the fire. When Gollum does take the Ring he falls into the Fire all by himself. Frodo could have said he would order him to stab himself or beat his brains out on a rock, but he accidentally happens to say the only thing that will end up destroying the Ring. That is like the weird coincidence that the one time the Witch King decides to fight someone at the Pelennor Fields he happens to pick the only two enemies in the battle who aren't men. The gods don't directly intervene in Middle Earth but they do load the dice.

I always saw Frodo’s age being completely appropriate in the movie. In the book it is stated that hobbits are considered to come of age at 33. And age 50 would be considered early middle age. So despite the fact that the ages themselves are older than a corresponding human, I always assumed that we were supposed to read Frodo as very very young. Also, despite the fact that Billy Boyd is older than Elijah wood, I always read the four hobbits as similar in age.

Now, I must say that Jackson's version does show evil destroying itself--the evil of the Ring made Gollum and Frodo into beings that at that moment would recklessly and instantly fight each other to the death in that extremely dangerous place, not even trying to move somewhere less perilous. The evil in Frodo and Gollum, fostered by the Ring, destroyed the Ring. JMHO

I think I say it on every video of yours, but man is this a super underrated channel. I love your insights, and even though I sometimes disagree with your points, I always appreciate the way you present them. If I could make one change to the ROTK film, it would be to remove the conflict between Sam and Frodo on the stairs. Focus more on Gollum foreshadowing Shelob. Oh and add the Watchers back in.

I think I appreciate movie frodo more each time I watch. He is certainly a flawed character but it's hard for me to see him as annoying or incompetent given the enormity and isolation of his task. I really appreciated this breakdown and how the changes made in the new medium affect his character arc.

Adding conflict between Frodo and Sam for the film externalizes Frodo's internal struggle with the ring itself. It's near impossible to *show* that struggle, so for the film they show it by way of Frodo's changing behavior towards his best friend.

Thanks for this analysis. It explains to me why my wife hated Frodo. She saw the movies before I read her the books and she saw Frodo as a whiny child.

The way the book was split and you had to read the entire slog of Frodo and Sam in one go; was brilliant. I always equated the ring as like a drug addiction. Reading page after page was tiring... just like Frodo's ordeal. Amazing that Tolkien was able to imbue feeling into the text in an extra dimension. At the end of the day. I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed the movie. Two distinct story telling approaches. Much like Jo Rowling's books and the movies. Two different experiences. Both satisfying... just different. Don't even get me started on the Frodo and Sam relationship. That must have been so challenging for Peter Jackson to portray. I think modern viewers look at a male-male relationship as either friendship or sexual. I think the books portrays a relationship in the middle. Deeper than friendship. ... Hard to put into words. I'll digress. Great video!

I was waiting for a big blue eyes joke, and was glad to find it took less than 2 minutes

I’ve only just discovered your channel. This was around the fourth of your presentations I’ve watched. As a lover of Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings, both in book and movie form, I’m fascinated and impressed with your analyses and insights. You have made me think about some of the characters and dynamics in new ways. I’m happy to have discovered you. For what it’s worth, while acknowledging that Jackson did an incredible job of translating the tale to cinema (to my pleasure and relief) I totally favor the literary form and its greater scope and depth. I look forward to viewing many more of your clips. Hats off to you.

Hobbits do not age at the same rate as humans. Hobbits frequently lived to be well over a hundred, for which reason Pippin still looks like a child in Minas Tirith. Since coming of age is 33 in the Shire and in England where Tolkien grew up, coming of age is 21, so my conjecture is a 7:11 ratio. With this in mind, I think everyone's ages makes a lot of sense. Pippin would be around seventeen, Sam and Merry in their early to mid-twenties, and Frodo in his earlier thirties. I think they could have conveyed him well in aspects such as the conversation at the Stairs of Cirith Ungol and other conversations both with Sam and Gandalf. I feel like they kind of destroyed his mercy and, in the words of the book "confused kindness with blindness". Frodo and Sam do not need conflict. There is something very encouraging about stable relationships-relationships as they should be. One of my favorite aspects of the movie "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is the relationship between Captain America and Falcon, for instance, because it just looks like a solid, even admirable friendship between two men, which you rarely see in media. I felt it mostly made Frodo come off as a total jerk, in my mind, because he told Sam to go home-where he obviously couldn't since it was too far. I'm sure they could convey the book relationship in the movies because there is enough intrigue as Frodo keeps on trying to persevere and Sam keeps on being obliged to help him. At the same time, they both have conflict with their third member of their party-namely Gollum. In my mind, the main thing about Peter Jackson's Frodo is basically Frodo if they took away almost all his likable qualities, that is, his mercy, his strength, and his appreciation of his friends. As for Gollum slipping and falling, I think there is a fair argument that in the book that Frodo, while overcome by the Ring, cursed him in this scene: *Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.* *'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'* I know the interpretation of this scene is controversial, but I still think conveying this would be more book-loyal than Frodo tackling him.

Brilliant job! One deviation from the book in the movies that truly bothered me was the encounter between Frodo and Faromir. When Faromir points out Gollum hunting for fish in the pool, he asks Frodo if he knows who/what the creature is. In the book, Frodo was a true gentleman (exemplifying his role as a hobbit as opposed to "men" in the trilogy) and would never lie. In the books he admits his relationship to Gollum to Faromir, but in Peter Jackson's version he lies about it! Frodo would never lie! And BTW: love the Frodo of the book over the Frodo of the movies any day - but I still understand the liberties Mr. Jackson had to make (in most cases)

Frodo looking younger, than he's supposed to, makes perfect sense in light of the ring's powers. Since he received it relatively young (at least the Hobbits would call him young at 33) it makes sense that super youthful Elijah Woods played him.

When I first saw the films even I thought that Frodo was a whiny cry-baby. But as a grown-up, movie Frodo feels more relatable and believable because he is shown how a normal person, completely unprepared for such a task, would truly act if thrust into it. It's beautiful that it's the constant support of his friends and their unwavering faith in him is what ultimately helps in reaching his goal.

I think it is important to mention that in the books it really is the ring itself that causes its own destruction along with Frodo and Gollum. Before heading into Mount Doom when Gollum attacked Frodo, Frodo said to Gollum while holding the Ring, "Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom". That was really the Ring speaking through Frodo. So when Gollum bit the Ring from Frodo's finger, the Ring fulfilled its promise and cast Gollum along with itself into the fires. As you said, Tolkien had way more nuance than the film.

I think Peter Jackson's version of the ring's destruction still works with Tolkien's themes. The ring's defining attribute, it's ability to make people mindlessly squabble over it, is what caused its destruction in the end. That's a perfect example of evil being a self-sabotaging force.

Even though I loved the movies, after decades of reading the LOTR, Frodo in the movie has never sat right with me. Wood's acting is amazing but Frodo was so special to me from the books I can't accept the difference.

Lovely to share the stories with you; I enjoy your insights to a book I first read 50 years ago and which I have re-read many times with greater understanding.

Despite the age issue, I loved Elijah Wood as Frodo and the casting for the Hobbits was perfect. I found Frodo probably got the worst treatment in the movie, compared to the book Frodo. All of the remarkable actions by Frodo in the face of the enemy, up until the breaking of the Fellowship, were either taken by other characters or diminished. It makes a Frodo that cannot be trusted to carry on the quest alone or just with Sam as a companion. He doesn't make a stand at the ford vs the Nazgul. He doesn't stab the cave troll in Moria. In the movies, when Aragorn decides that Frodo is up to the job, it makes me say: "Based on what?".

I loved the movies, but I really didn't like how they both nerfed Frodo, making him more inept and dependent, while buffing other characters like Legolas. I get that Hollywood has spent decades crafting a certain image of what is "realistic", but that's a Hollywood, problem, not an audience problem. Life is not a series of X-game moments with superhero dismounts, and at least in part that was Tolkein's point - Frodo did it because he did it, and normal boring Frodo accomplished a task that the mythic figures surrounding him could not.

I used to think that Gollum's/the Ring's end was (not bad, but definitely) anticlimactic, until I realised, that Gollum doesn't fall because he oopsies, but he falls, because Frodo, on the way up the side of Mt. Doom curses Gollum to "be cast into the fiery depths himself" (not sure I have the wording correct) if he ever again goes against Frodo and his mission. And because Gollum swore on the Ring, and Frodo invoked the Ring to make this order/curse, as soon as Gollum gets the Ring, the curse takes effect and makes him fall. So the Ring (in a very Tolkien fashion) destroyed itself by fulfilling Frodo's curse. And I just love this. It makes me adore the end of the quest so much.

I wanna note about the Cirith Ungol scene that it doesn't taint their relationship at all. All we saw untill that point was them being very loving friends, Sam being willing to drown for Frodo. The scene is a display and testement to just how powerful and corrupting the ring is. We've seen how it corrupted a stranger in Boromir who did not share the bond that Frodo and Sam had. We've seen it corrupt Smeagol and what it turned him in to, and how he nearly instantly strangled Deagol the second they found the ring. But I think it was important to show both the burden of the ring and how hevay it was, and how it corrupted a holder who tried to resist it's temptation, who tried to avoid putting the ring on. How it corrupted him even to the point where his mind was easily tricked, and messed with, and to the point where he would discard a friend whom he shared that kind of bond with. And I think it was just important for their journey to show what the ring was doing to Frodo, and probably the best way to create tention, drama and excitement broadly for Frodo and Sam's story to be interesting enough to follow as well. And not make their story the "boring part"

I'm not certain the film Frodo was quite as weak as some think. He did, after all, volunteer to carry the Ring to Mordor. After Boromir's betrayal, Frodo also opted to go on alone rather than to risk another of the Fellowship being corrupted by the Ring, which shows considerable strength of character. Je knows going alone will significantly increase the danger, but does it to protect his friends. I think much of his perceived weakness came from not really understanding exactly what would be required of him, both physically and mentally. Think about it: a scholarly, largely sedentary individual is tasked with taking the single most dangerous item on their world halfway across that world. The Ring, metaphorically (and perhaps literally) got increasingly heavy as Frodo got closer to Mordor.

OMG. I absolutely HATED the scene where Gollum falls into the abyss in the movie!!! For me, that scene in the BOOK (which I read back in May of 1967!) was so cathartic I had to actually put the book down and walk away for a while to gather myself, as I had been so caught up in the moment where Frodo turns to Sam and says he has decided not to destroy the ring after all. OMG. Then Gollum appears, wrestles with the invisible Frodo on the edge of the abyss, suddenly Frodo appears again, minus a finger which Gollum has bitten off ...a moment of Gollum teetering on the brink in triumph ...then he falls.... What a moment. What an absolutely incredible, unlooked-for moment. So inherently dramatic it didn't need any melodrama at all. It deserved a moment of total silence except for the background roar of flames. Instead, the movie scene was so totally NAFF. A literal, melodramatic cliffhanger. Aaargh! AARGH!!! Don't get me started. I think that was the worst scene in the entire movie, mainly because it should have been the best one. It shouldn't have been about Sam rescuing Frodo ...he'd already done that many times...or about the audience going 'oh no, will he fall, won't he fall'. It should have been all about Gollum. It should have brought back Gandalf's words-way back in The Fellowship of the Ring-where he tells Frodo that Gollum would likely have his part to play in the events, and that he should not be killed. And how. The fact that GOLLUM was the one who (inadvertently) destroyed the ring-a plot twist that I guarantee NOBODY saw coming-gets totally lost in this horrendously over-egged, anti-climactic movie scene. I want to weep, watching or thinking about it. Aaargh....

it is a nice turn around in the movies that at the end of the first movie Frodo pulls up Sam while at the end of movie 3 Sam pulls up Frodo.

Movie Frodo drives me a little nutty.

Great video and a great point about how Frodo and Sam might seem dull intercut with all the other characters, battles, etc. While admitting that that's a thorny problem, I'm still going to defend the book's way of showing the Ring's malign influence on their friendship vs. the movie's. In the book, the scene that shows the Ring coming between Frodo and Sam is in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, when Sam offers to keep the Ring for a while (because Frodo is weak and also because... the Ring) and Frodo demands it back and cusses him out for it really cruelly. Honestly, I don't remember exactly how the movie played that, but I remember finding it very watered down. The difference between this conflict and conflict over Gollum saying Sam ate the lembas is that the former makes sense and the latter doesn't. In the book, Frodo is separated from the Ring (which would make any Ringbearer antsy) and Sam not only has it but has suggested he should keep it for a while, which, of course, makes Frodo snap. With the Ring's influence so strong, it wouldn't make sense if he *didn't* snap. Bonus, it shows the more minor influence of the Ring on Sam too. In the movie, the idea that Sam--I mean *Sam*--would eat the last of their food is absurd. Frodo is certainly influenced by the Ring but he's not so influenced that he would believe about the least believable lie about his best friend, coming from a sometime serious enemy. If he were that far gone, he'd just be an insane bundle of paranoid raving, and he's not. I find both those scenes really painful, the scene in the book because it rings so true (no pun) and the scene in the movie because it rings so false.

Re: Gollum on the precipice in Orodruin: there's also the school of thought that Eru Ilúvatar gave Gollum a tiny nudge to facilitate his fall - which aligns with Tolkien's Catholic perspective that God can and will directly intervene in the direst of circumstances, even though His children might not realize or understand His actions (but that doesn't negate your point about evil being ultimately self-destructive in Tolkien's worldview!)... Also, your comment about Frodo (figuratively) falling over and over again reminded me that someone on RU-vid did a supercut with a counter of every time Frodo (literally) fell in the films; I can't remember the total number, but it was high... It was very high 😄

This was really beautiful to watch. I should stop postponing reading the books, the book Frodo version and relationship with Sam sounds lovely! Like you explained it I also understand why they changed it a bit for the movie. Thanks again for the beautiful video!

Movie Frodo is just an Elijah Wood plushie, carried around by whoever else is with him.

I really liked the betrayal of Sam on the stair. To me it was a great depiction of the corrupting influence of the Ring. Evil can be hard to really get across, so the fact that it (through Gollum) was able to tear these friends apart showed that beautifully.

I like how you broke down the many differences between Frodo's character in the film and book. Many fans including myself viewed Frodo as cowardly in the film's and I always preferred his book character as he felt like a character who literally stood up till he couldn't anymore. His film version seemed less equipped to be the Ring bearer than his book self. They also leave out exactly how Frodo changed in a spiritual sense and how he was " broken down into something quite different." Like the scene where Frodo commanded Gollum to be gone with the power of the Ring. "And before it stood stern untouchable now by pity a figure robed in white and at it's breast it held a Wheel of Fire. Out of the Fire there spoke a commanding voice, BEGONE AND TROUBLE ME NO MORE IF YOU TOUCH ME EVER AGAIN YOU WILL BE CAST YOURSELF INTO THE FIRE OF DOOM!" Or the scene in the emin muil when Sam sees frodo as "A tall stern Lord who hid his light in grey cloud". Also how Sauroman commented in the scouring of the shire on how he'd " grown". Frodo wasn't just merely traumatized as he seemed to be in the film's. He saw the Rings true form as a Wheel of Fire. Felt it's true weight on his mind and soul. And understood it's evil in a way nobody on earth could've. That coupled with his wounds gave him knowledge, wisdom, and foresight into that which was beyond an ordinary Hobbit. But also broke him. Curiously I think the Hobbit film's do the exact opposite with Bilbo that the LOTR film's did with Frodo and made him too much of an action hero.

Neat discussion topic - it is interesting seeing the variation in the Frodo we get in the books through to the movies. I think the BBC Radio Play adaptation is closer to the books in giving us that more forthright Frodo but I understand why they made the changes for the sake of a different medium. I think if helps Samwise shine though and that's a great thing. Would love to see more contrasts between the book and movie characters :) There are some who get a little hard done by at times!

I first read The Hobbit then the Lord of the Rings in junior high and multiple times through my life, decades before the movies. I love the movies. I agree with your assessment. But the thing that shocked me is how the movies have re-written the story in my mind. I’ve watched the movies multiple times, so when I most recently re-engaged with the written story, I was shocked at how my memory of the story has been changed. I am concerned that the original story, along with so many others, will be lost if people don’t read.

I'm amazed by you clear enunciation in every video

I think you're spot on about Frodos and Sam's relationship not translating interestingly to a wide "non-fan" audience of movie-goers. Considering to most of the audience, the movies were their only exposure to Tolkiens work, and they probably would not have enjoyed the nuanced relationship as opposed to a more exciting take. Enjoyed the video, first time viewer, keep up the quality content!

You did a nice job with this. Thanks for sharing it... I feel less alone thinking what I think. (despite disagreement in the other comments).

In my imagination, Frodo looks like Sir Alec Guinness in “Bridge Over The River Kwai”. Hugo Weaving, however, looks EXACTLY like I picture Elrond. I was spooked when I first saw movie! I love Bernard Hill’s portrayal of Theoden. I just wish they had aged him appropriately. It makes his actions even more heroic. I love your channel!

Never thought that much how what might be seen as a minor change, changing the age of characters, can have an impact on the relationship of the characters in the story. I still feel the essence of the characters is kept, although in the books Frodo is more courageous and decisive, while in the movies he can be more afraid or faltering and indecisive, which I never linked it with the change of his younger age, but it makes sense! By the end of the journey the movie and book Frodo merge for me, as you can see the ring clearly being a burden that has gotten a hold of him and Sam has to rise to the occasion and push him to finish the task! Wonderful discussion and comparison!

In the old Ralph Bakshee cartoon Frode is shown to be braver, like when he is followed by the Nasguul to Rivendale. What a wasted moment to show that Frodo could stand up for him self, just to use it so that Arwen could have a sceen.

Really loved your analysis and how open-minded you are about the changes even if you didn't necessarily agree with them. A couple things regarding the movie criticism though: 1) It wasn't the lembas bread bait that got Frodo to finally snap and send Sam away. It was Sam suggesting to "share" the ring with him right after. The exact thing he was most paranoid about thanks to the Ring and Gollum whispering in both of his ears. I never liked this scene, to be frank, but it wasn't about the bread. The bread was just the catalyst in a sense. I consider it like a compositing of the book scene where Sam takes the ring after Shelob and Frodo snaps at him. 2) I have never seen anyone who considers him and Sam's relationship in the movies paternal, like you suggest. They're presented as friends around the same age and Sam directly tells Faramir he's Frodo's gardener. The class difference between Sam and the other 3 was definitely watered down a lot though. 3) Frodo doesn't tackle Gollum off the cliff. Not intentionally anyway. He wrestles him for the ring and they both accidentally slip. This isn't the same as the book and does add a bit more drama, but it still keeps the "evil will destroy itself" message quite clear in my opinion. It was the Ring's own corruption of both Frodo and Gollum that caused it's downfall. And from a cinematic viewpoint, the scene where he's hanging off the ledge is actually beautifully done because the ring doesn't fully fall into the lava until Frodo completely lets go of it to stay with Sam (the directing and Elijah Wood's acting choices make you think he might intentionally let go to go down with it like Gollum did). - I can definitely understand why movie!Frodo might frustrate people, but for me, I find him inspiring in his own way. He's weak and he's carried by his friends, he can barely walk on his own towards the climax because the burden is so heavy, but he still keeps going anyway. He still fights back against Sauron's will mentally in whatever way he can. He still keeps his compassion and he still succeeds in surviving. He was ultimately just Some Guy being corrupted by the literal embodiment of evil and I think Jackson showcased that realistically. I do wish he was a little more proactive like in the books, but Peter Jackson had Elijah Wood's huge, blue puppy eyes and he used them to their full effect lol.

I've never particularly liked Frodo and Sam's relationship due to how unnecessarily grand their interactions are. We see them carry each other, make proclamations of love and what not, and pull each other from the brink. In the book they sang together, cooked together, told stories, and enjoyed Tolkien's world together. It's soft and wholesome and realistic. I feel the movies miss the simplicity that exists in loving relationships.

I haven't read the books, so some of these differences I'm hearing for the first time. It's pretty fascinating. The falling out between Frodo and Sam in the movie was always something that jumped out at me as out-of-character, and now that I know it's not part of the book I like it even less. I understand the idea behind it, but it always came across as a plot device that didn't really need to be there. As far as the ending, I much prefer your explanation of the book event - the idea of evil destroying itself - but I also understand the mediums of storytelling are different and that something like that works much better in print than in film. Thanks for doing these videos. They are really interesting.

I really appreciate the effort and thought you put into your discussions, and feel that your analysis are always solid and sometimes insightful (not an insult, it's just that people have been discussing this stuff for 60+ years). But a few things you said didn't work at all for me. The age of the actors - I've seen the movies multiple times and didn't know there was a ten year age gap. I've always assumed that for purposes of the movie they were about the same age. The "like a father figure" comment, based on a ten year age difference of the actors, came off as an extreme stretch for me. I've also read discussions of the age topic, and I've never seen anyone think that there was supposed to be an age/experience difference between the movie characters of Frodo and Sam. IMO, yours is a very personal take on this. I'm not saying your take is wrong, but for me, it's unconvincing. The other issue is what Frodo's (book) age means. As another commenter mentioned, coming of age for a Hobbit is 33. It may be a cultural (rather than bio) function, but it also means that 19 is a good fit for where Frodo is supposed to start in terms of maturity. IIRC, Merry and Pippin were essentially teenagers in the book (in terms of maturity), and this was another thing that Jackson translated for the movie, though from what I've seen most people assume they're all about the same bio age. Anyway, I might just be griping. I don't think these differences of opinion derail most of your points or matter that much, but they bothered me enough to say something. Thanks for the video!

Tolkien's message at mount doom was not diluted at all. It was just a bit different, you have to remember that Frodo finally fell for the ring, and Gollum dropped because both of them were fighting for the ring, meaning evil destroyed itself.

Love your Videos. But Hobbits do not age like humans. Frodos 33rd Birthday is his coming of age day, so he should look like a Human of 18-20. From there he has the Ring and doesn't age (which is made quite explicit in the book). So actually Elija Wood looks as Frodo should. You are perfectly right about the other points :) keep on doing these great analysis!

I hated how they painted him a coward / weak in the movies. I feel the falling out of Frodo and Sam was just evil. It never happened and wasn't needed ... it was just a weak, obvious conflict like movie makers always have to interject into every single story. They can't imagine a happy marriage or a happy friendship that doesn't need conflict, because both people knows their roles and want to cooperate. I loved the courage of the book Frodo.

You put a lot of effort into your videos. It's good to see. Keep it up

Outside of the “which character is better” arguments, the nuances of which you articulate beautifully, I argue that the movie’s version holds an incredibly important message. Rather than being the classic protagonist, Jackson’s version has a crystal clear dichotomy: evil and industry are individualistic while goodness lies in community and love. Every member of the Fellowship supports each other, and that is why they succeed. The peoples of Middle Earth must come together to defeat the great evil. Frodo needs Sam (and even Gollum) to complete his task because that’s what goodness is: strength through love.

It's great that you can enjoy the books and the movies in different ways. As I got older and rereading the books, I started to understand the dynamic from Frodo's point of view. While before it was from Sam's.

The other point of Gollum slipping into the fire is given at the beginning of the Silmarillion when Eru explains to Melkor that no one can thwart His plans and all of the actions against His plans are just incorporated into His plans. That is why Gandalf tells Frodo that him being meant to have the ring is an encouraging thought, and why Gandalf is certain Gollum has a part to play. When I read LOTR again after reading the Silmarillion, it all just fell into place.

I fully appreciate your insights on this topic

It may have been said by someone else, but my read of the "tackle" scene is that in no way it takes away Tolkien's message of evil being self-defeating. Frodo continues to fight Gollum not as a last second push to save the world, but still out of the all-consuming desire for the Ring. The Ring's same reckless, irresistible, murderous greed that led Isildur to take it for himself, Boromir to briefly falter and betray the Fellowship, and Smeagol to murder Deagol, was the reason for Frodo to try to kill Gollum, causing the Ring's own destruction. Yes, it's an extra step from the book, but like you say, it wouldn't be cinematic to watch Gollum just blooper himself and the Ring into the lava. It provided a more cinematic alternative for the same message to be delivered: the Ring destroyed itself by doing what it always did, making people desire it so much that they will fight and kill over it. It does take away one thing, though. Tolkien did admit that there was a divine intervention in Gollum's slip and fall. As you read in the quote, Frodo spent all the power and will he had to get the ring to the goal, and could get it no further, which is more than anyone else in his era could have done. Eru Iluvatar himself made Gollum fall, and so while evil was self-defeating, it did take God to take the wheel in the end. In the movie, evil is self-defeating all by itself, with no need for Eru's invisible banana peel on Gollum's path. Which, you know, can be seen as better or worse.

Admission? I turned off the video of Fellowship when Arwen stole Frodo's moment at the Fords of Bruinen--I'd been so looking forward to "You shall have neither the Ring nor me!" that I determined at that point that clearly, the movies didn't get the character. I didn't bother with the rest until more than a decade later.

I actually hate the movie version of Frodo. Every quirk he had, they gave to someone else. Like in the books, Frodo stole the mushrooms. In the movie, it was Pippin and Merry. In the same way, every heroic thing Frodo did, every show of strength, was given to someone else. Like in the books Frodo stands up to the Nazgûl. In the movie Pippin and Merry stands up to them, protecting Frodo while Frodo, like a little baby, dropps his sword and falls on his ass in fear. And this pattern goes on throughout Jackson’s story. Sometimes I actually wonder if he hated the character, seeing how much he screws Frodo over. Like one part I love in the books is that Tolkien writes that both Sam and Gollum makes the mistake of thinking that since Frodo is kind, he is also naive and stupid. Then Frodo shocks them by showing them that he isn’t a fool. In the movie however, Frodo IS that naive foolish hobbit both Sam and Gollum takes him for. Sam lectures him over and over, but Frodo dosent listen. Sam is also so much meaner to Gollum in the movies. I hate Movie Frodo. They hollowed him out and washed away everything that made him interesting.

I would argue that we still get a message about evil destroying itself in the movie version. I always assumed that Frodo tackeled Gollum in an attempt to get the ring back and out of rage towards Gollum for taking it. Thus, the ring ends up failing into the lava because it got people to fight over it.

Bilbo went there and back again. Frodo went to and fro. Now Gandalf... he's been places.

On Frodo's age: (1) Hobbits can live as old as 144, so they're generally longer-lived and slowed to mature. Hence the references to the irresponsible "tweens" (20s) before coming of age at 33. So a 33 year old Hobbit would appear younger than a 33 year old human. (2) Frodo received the Ring at 33 from Bilbo. Given its anti-aging effect, it would be reasonable to assume his appearance wouldn't change by the time he was 50. From "The Shadow of the Past": "As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained the appearance of a rebust and energetic hobbit just out of his tweens" Thus Elijah's youthful appearance is entirely plausible, both the Long-Expected Party and later when he leaves the Shire. Of course, Sam, Merry and Pippin absolutely should have all aged by 17 years, though given that's the change from young adulthood to middle-age, it's not obvious how much even that duration would show.

No one shows greater love than when he lays down his life for his friends. -Jesus

I love Peter Jackson's tension between Sam and Frodo until the sending away part, I know that gollum needs to separate them, but I I don't understand why Sam really seemed to be going home, I think it would've been more compelling if Sam went away just far enough and then steadfast as ever turned around and looked for an opportunity to save Frodo, even from a distance.

The main thing this changed was that people tend to hate Pippin and Merry, specially Pippin, because they don't understand that comparatively, Pippin was supposed to be a teen and Merry supposed to be not of age yet (20) and Sam in his young twenties while Frodo is 30 something.

also gollum’s accidental slipnfall in the book was important to highlight the ring’s power. it’s impossible to intentionally destroy the ring, the power becomes overwhelming to literally anyone who gets close. that’s why frodo couldn’t even after coming all that way. so an “accident” (which tolkien often uses to mean the will of illuvatar) is the only way the ring could have ever been destroyed. but i totally understand why that would be very hard to convey in 12 hours of movie so i like the movie version too.

Frodo at 33 was still a pretty youthful-looking hobbit. Hobbits frequently lived to a hundred or so and, bear in mind, that is *with* Middle-earth's lack of modern medical care, so it scales more to a human expectation of... dying at sixty or seventy. One of the things about this though is that Frodo continued to *look* like a youthful hobbit just out of his "tweens" until the end of the novel, due to the Ring's influence, so even in the book he still looked pretty much like a nineteen-year-old. That's probably why Elijah Wood was cast at nineteen to begin with: he very much looked the part. That youthfulness was always an aspect of how Frodo was portrayed in illustrations and the like, as well as in the Bakshi film. It's more the psychological aspect of his character that was changed by the timeline-contraction in the film, since in the book Frodo was characterized as being torn between loving the Shire and wanting to go on adventures, an aspect of his personality that was acknowledged and then not really used in the film. Of course this also means that, even in the books, Frodo had a slightly more youthful appearance than Sam, Merry, and Pippin, despite them being his juniors by a number of years: almost two decades passed between the party and their departure, after all, so Frodo stopped aging... but the others didn't. This is a pretty interesting aspect of the Ring's influence on its bearer that the movies kind of lose, even with Bilbo, who they cast an older actor to play than he actually needed based on the book.

I think the scene that really encapsulates the differences between movie Frodo and Sam Frodo is when they first find and subdue Gollum. In the books its a very revealing scene as we see Frodo in all his wisdom and power and understand for the first time the way he has grown as a character. In the books he's sort of just a wishy washy Good Samaritan that can't stand Gollum's crying.

1:20 oh dear - this only gets worse with time Best make peace with it 😂

I was always struck with how delicate and naive Jackson’s Frodo seemed compared to Tolkien’s Frodo. But I’ve come to enjoy them both equally. Even though he is more brave and mature in the book, the film’s Frodo is reasonable because A) the Ring halted his aging as soon as Bilbo gave it to him B) Frodo was from an affluent family and was bound to be less tough than his gardener Sam, at least at first

I only discovered your channel last week, and after about 4 videos, I really enjoy your content! I am both an avid reader and a movie buff. In the case of both book and movie versions of Lord of the Rings, I consider them similar stories, but fairly different. One of the key differences, is the movies were made to interest as many people as possible, especially those that, while the may have heard of LotR, really didn't have the inclination to read it. And while it makes for a great written story for those with the desire to read it, it ultimately is very pat throughout. As you pointed out, conflict and tension in a movie are fascinating. If you keep an audience guessing, wondering what pitfalls the characters will find next, that's part of movie going. There are a few places that Jackson goes that are only hinted at in the books, like the fight between the Balrog and Gandalf, that were awesome deviations. And some things, like the warg attack, that were gratuitous, although kind of cool at the same time. There are many fans of books, not just LotR, that will usually be disappointed when any story that they loved is translated for the screen. I tend to try to keep them separate, especially in the case of an effort such as the LotR movies, because of what ended up on the screen being every bit as epic as the book is, even considering the deviations the directors and screenwriters may have made. Anyways, loved your getting to the nuts and bolts of both, and I'm looking forward to more!

I think the book intent to carry the notion 33 is the hobbit considered the age at which you reach adulthood, so that would be the equivalent of reaching 18 for a human by modern standard: “At that time Frodo was still in his tweens, as the hobbits called the irresponsible twenties between childhood and coming of age at thirty-three.” So I think it's fair to say that 50 is actually the equivalent of 30.

Having not read the books and not ever planning too the movies are all I really knew of the latter part of the third age. It's quite striking hearing these differences as they sound quite major! But indeed, this is potentially the nature of adaptations.

Great video. The book explanation of Gollem's fall is listed in Frodo's curse against Gollem: 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom." A lot of LOTR fans think that Frodo actually uses the Ring's power in this curse, so Gollem's fall is actually directly caused by the Ring. So, same idea of evil destroying itself, but a bit more laid out.

For those of us who read the book once a year from the age of 12 on, Jackson committed blasphemy with this alteration of their relationship. You mess with canon at your peril with original fans. Of course, Jackson could afford to piss off Tolkien fans, despite them being a built in audience, because he was selling his movie to a whole generation of ignorati.

Overall, I like book Frodo & Sam better, but one thing I appreciate about their falling out in the movie is that it shows how manipulative Gollum is. Up until that point, he’s kind of a pitiable character who has been pushed around by both the bad guys and the good guys, but the way he plays the hobbits against each other clearly shows he really does have an evil side that hasn’t been overcome.

Jess, excellent job verbalizing my feelings about the relationship between the books and the movies. The books are the best, but I appreciate the movies both as art AND how they attracted new audiences. You have wonderful insight for an infant child and give me hope for your generation! :-D!

I would argue that the film's still captures that theme of the power of evil being self-destructive. Instead of golem dancing off the edge, the movie has the ring through its influence on frodo push golem off the edge of the cliff and into the lava

Thank you so much for these videos. I just discovered your channel and love the discussions around the changes. As much as I love the movies (I also cry like a little boy at the end), I love the book-versions of the characters much more. I havent gotten to your Boromir video yet - My favourite movie character. I am always amazed how much thought Tolkien put into his characters and the movie versions seem crude against the books. Though I can understand the changes. The most important thing to keep in mind is that this is an adaption into a different medium. We as fans must be openminded to changes and not see them as a threat against what we love. I can love Book Frodo and Movie Frodo - although him sending Sam away makes it hard :)

I never, ever saw film Frodo as weak!!! I'm in complete shock that anyone sees film Frodo as weak! I am utterly baffled. Frodo was ride or die about gettingrid of this ring once he left Galadriel. Even at the Shire, he was ON IT to get the ring out of the Shire. Weak people don't volunteer to do the most dangerous thing ever, especially when they know they may die in the process! Really...what do y'all think strength is??? (And yes, I read all 3 books- 4 times each.)

It is so fascinating getting these book versus movie perspectives from someone who grew up on the films before reading the books. I read and reread the books obsessively from around age 6 onward and the films didn't come out until I was in high school. So like, my first impression of the films was largely to be affronted by the Hollywood-ness of it all -- where is the subtlety and nuance? the realism? the relatively still moments to pause and reflect? why the hell is Legolas a blond now, and why did they age down the entire fellowship except Boromir and Sam?? -- and it took me a long time to appreciate the films for what they are.

Regarding Frodo and Sam’s relationship being believable, it’s important to understand that many of the people watching the films have been through the horrors of war and might not understand the bonds that are forged with brothers in battle. Tolkien had experienced this, and he lost best friend in battle. I would imagine that readers in his generation could relate to such a relationship more than today when close relationships among men aren’t as common or accepted.

Good video and background music choice, can't tell you how many times youtubers pull me out of the video by off-music, bravo

Perhaps it's my familiarity with the source material, but the "break up" between Frodo and Sam simply came across as unbelievable to me. Out of character for the canon, but also for the film characters and situation. Plus I liked the how in the book Sam was so close to Frodo in Shelob's Lair, but because he specifically wasn't fast or strong enough to immediately fight off Gollum, Frodo was poisoned. Emphasizing how Sam failed at helping Frodo at that crucial moment, when he was so nearby, is more of a gut punch than Sam deciding he doesn't want to walk home alone. Regardless, I appreciate your gracious analysis of what the film was attempting to convey.

If Sam in the films reads to you as a father figure, I can only conclude that you saw different films than the ones I saw.

As someone who read the books after seeing the movie, I actually suspect that a large part of the change in dynamic between Sam and Frodo has to do with modern sensibilities regarding class and the concept of a servant/servitude, vs how those kinds of relationships were understood in the strongly class oriented society of Britain 70-100 years ago. Actually, I'm surprised that this has not more frequently been mentioned. Upon a re-read of the books as an adult (who has not really been exposed to say, military culture), I'm still shocked at that intensely hierarchiac class dynamic - the concept of a small m "master" and all that it implied in their relationship and in how others immediately viewed their relationship through that understanding (eg, Faramir in Ithilian); the way Sam continually denigrates himself, his intelligence and capability, with the words of his father ringing in his head (of all the characters, he's actually one of the ones that gets the most internal dialogue narration); all the sir-ing; the hightened discrepancy between the two characters' dialogue style (preserved but toned down in the movies), etc... I don't think that intensity of intimacy mixed with hierarchy has much modern equivalent in Western nations outside of military contexts, and honestly wouldn't be immediately understandable or have gone all that well with a young modern audience, particularly not with the choice of casting a younger Frodo (the other primary change from which many smaller changes derive). I myself coming from a basically egalitarian society find it a bit off-putting in the book, in a way I wouldn't reading a true period piece. So instead the movie shows that they share this very close, loving and loyal friendship, between almost equals (basically in all but name, though certainly it retains some class elements such as level of schooling and land ownership) that binds them close as or closer than brothers by the end of the journey. In watching the movies, Sam is never really portrayed as Frodo's servant (though he obviously is by definition), but rather his gardener (which carries a very different connotation for modern audiences than it might have had in Tolkein's time). Their deeply loyal and loving, archetypal, friendship is fitting with some of the major themes of the book - how love, friendship and fellowship are among the ultimate redeaming forces for good and "humanity". In the movies, I've always read Sam and Frodo to be close to the same age, friends with a few years' age difference who would have essentially grown up together within their tiny community (though of course Frodo was adopted). I also could never really guess Frodo's age - something between late teens to perhaps mid 30's, but also sort of unidentifyable and timeless... I immediately got the feeling that hobbits didn't really age as humans do, and the fact that they never grow facial hair certainly adds to that babyface look. It wouldn't have surprised me if Frodo was actually older than he seemed. The choice to cast him younger gives the character the earnestness and innocence of youth in regards to his great mission; he is made a bit less eloquent and a bit less able to navigate complexities in the movies than his novel counterpart, but his innate goodness, his kindness, his generosity and his refined character in general remains evident, even as he is tormented and eventually degenerates thanks to legit demonic forces (hashtag understandable!). But his internal world and thought was never much elaborated in the books and what we know of him comes mainly from his actions and other people's perception of him rather than what we come to understand of his own inner processes. Even though he's ostensibly the main character, he's remains a bit of a hard character to get to know. I do like the choice of E. Wood as Frodo, as well as his acting - I think anyone who finds him to be a cry baby is out of touch with the enormity of the kind of responsibility and burden Frodo carries (literally the weight of the world and every living being in it), and the physical and psychological toll of that kind of journey, and would no doubt not fair much better themselves - this truly is not your typical macho action-movie hero, and thank god for that. Given the adaptation of mediums, extremely compressed plot timelines and the director's choice to focus on action, I think it would have been difficult to (captivatingly) portray Frodo any closer to how he is in the books than they have, no matter the choice of actor. There is also something (many things) to be said about movie Frodo's almost otherwordly, almost non-sexual beauty in this movie, that alone (in tandem with the gorgeous framing, lighting and filters) translates so much of his inner character to the screen in that particular way that only visual media can. There really is something very much angelic about Elijah's Frodo, something very pure, that likely would not have translated with any other actor (and certainly his age during filming helped here); even his various looks of horror with his curled up lips to me mirrors so exactly the look of classic mythological heros as portrayed with the curled lips of youthful greek statues or Michelangelo's David. All this assists in making movie Frodo into more than just a character, but the embodiment of archetype - albeit a slightly different version than the book's.

I think the movie still upholds the theme because Frodo and Gollum fighting over the ringing being the thing that pushes the Ring over the edge is still showing how Evil is destroyed by the discord and violence it engenders.

I agree that the conflict might have long ago made a more interesting story, but by now (including the time the movies were filmed) it has devolved to the standard Hollywood cliche 3 act story that every movie maker seems to think they need. I don't think it was needed, and I don't think anyone, whether they read the books or not, believed it was any more than a plot device that would be conveniently resolved.

I never saw Sam as a father figure in the movie to Frodo. He always came across as younger, less educated and more innocent to me.