Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [mythsoc] Elijah Wood as Frodo

Expand Messages
  • jack@greenmanreview.com
    ... Weren t their lifespans roughly double what a human was at the time Tolkien wrote the books? And I m suggesting that their social development might not be
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 25, 2005
      > I disagree. Their lives aren't that much longer than humans; if we
      > equate 33 in hobbit life with turning 21 (or even 18) in human
      > society, this would make Frodo at 50 equivalent to a human in his
      > late 30s or about 40 and the younger hobbits in their mid
      > twenties--not children jumping on furniture.

      Weren't their lifespans roughly double what a human was at the time Tolkien wrote the books?

      And I'm suggesting that their social development might not be the same as humans.
    • Rateliff, John
      Actually, Wood s about the right age to play Frodo, though as with many child actors he looks a little younger than his years. I think he does a good job with
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 25, 2005
        Actually, Wood's about the right age to play Frodo, though as with many child actors he looks a little younger than his years. I think he does a good job with "Shire Hobbit Frodo" in the first film and "in over my head" Frodo of most of the second movie. It's the wigged-out Frodo of the end of the second movie (scenes at Osgiliath) and what should be the battered, weary, concentration-camp-survivor Frodo of the third movie where he falls short for me.
        In hobbit terms, 33 yrs = about 21 for humans; hence Frodo should look like a college kid [or, to put it a different way, about the age people usually go off to war]. Remember that he stopped aging when he got the Ring, so at 50 he still looks exactly as he did when he came of age. Pippin should look like a Freshman, Merry should have a few years on them both (he's a little younger than Frodo but hasn't stopped aging in the intervening 17 years). As for dignity, Gandalf himself describes him (at age 50) as a "perky chap with a bright eye", so if Jackson exaggerates there's still something there for him to exaggerate from. I too wish he had more gravitas in the final scenes.

        <Beth Russell wrote>
        > When [Jackson] twisted Aragorn and Faramir (the noblest Men in
        > T-LOTR) he not only twisted great gobs of the story, he also twisted the
        > moral plane of the whole thing. This is the central idea I want to get
        > across. Or at least, present what went on and hope the class figures
        > our for themselves how bad it is.
        >
        Actually, I think Jackson messed up Faramir so badly that I wouldn't use him at all. If I had to pick a hero to contrast between the film and book I'd use Theoden, showing the scene at Dunharrow (just after Aragorn has taken the Path of the Dead) where the old king decides to ride to battle knowing that he cannot win (AND tells his men so, AND still gets them to follow him), paired with the speech before the charge on the Pelennor Field. Or you could use Eowyn, particularly the scene where Aragorn catches her with a sword and they spar a little, matched against her fight with the Witch-King (the desire vs. the reality).

        <Blake Adams wrote>
        am I the only one who thinks
        he looks suspiciously like another actor who portrays a certain
        student from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardry?

        Um, he doesn't looks like Daniel Radcliffe to me, no. Sorry. Not that Radcliffe might not make a fine hobbit one of these days. I just keep hoping against hope that if they do make a Peter Jackson HOBBIT movie they'll somehow talk Ian Holm into reprising his role as Bilbo. Wildly unlikely, but there it is. But who would play ten-year-old Aragorn?

        <Beth Russell wrote>
        I thought that Dorothy Sayers novel completed by "Another Lady" was
        pretty icky too.

        Yes, but to be fair the partial draft Sayers left behind was far below her usual standard; there's a reason she abandoned the story. I think Paton Walsh made the best of a bad job. She's since written another, wholly new, Peter-&-Harriett novel set during the war.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Michael Martinez
        ... According to Tolkien, Hobbits ARE human, and there is nothing wrong with a 50-year-old hopping around. HOWEVER, technically, in the book, while Frodo was
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 25, 2005
          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, jack@g... wrote:

          > I disagree. Given their longer lives, it can argued that they also
          > had a delayed physical and social development process. Hobbits are
          > *not* human, so theur chronological cannot be assumed to reflect
          > their physical appearence.

          According to Tolkien, Hobbits ARE human, and there is nothing wrong
          with a 50-year-old hopping around.

          HOWEVER, technically, in the book, while Frodo was 50 when he set out
          from the Shire, the Ring had preserved his physical age and he still
          seemed like he was 33 (and the narrative mentions the unnatural
          aspect of his preservation).

          Pippin, the youngest of the four Hobbits to leave the Shire, was only
          29 (when he reached Minas Tirith -- or so he told Bergil). Merry and
          Sam were both younger than Frodo.

          Tolkien's hobbits lived to ripe old ages in their 90s and 100s, just
          like people today. He gave them a bit of an edge but not much of one.

          --
          Michael Martinez
          Author of Understanding Middle-earth, Parma Endorion, and Visualizing
          Middle-earth
          http://www.michael-martinez.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.