Frodo = lame-o, Sam is the man.

[don't ask]

Can anyone tell me why Frodo is the nominal hero of LOTR.

The guy is a dud. Mostly he seems puzzled and indecisive. If he does make a judgement call he is wrong. He's forever sooking and whinging, he frequently hints at giving up. He's inattentive and the general cause of any difficulties he and Sam face. He doesn't seem brave. He is disloyal to Sam at the drop of a hat. He is Gollum's ready dupe. He provides no help or support to Sam but like a child with a parent has Sam to look after his needs.

Sam is a rock. He sees through Gollum and is willing to risk Frodo's ire to protect Frodo from the little creep. It doesn't matter how badly Frodo treats him, he remains a loyal friend. For Frodo he fights every foe placed before him, usually fighting out of his division. He's the kind of guy to give up the last of the food or drink for the good of the quest. He wills Frodo on when the little wimp wants to quit. He doesn't expect to make it home but will go on to the end.

More specifically how is Frodo a hero when:

SPOILER:

He wants to quit "We can't get through without being seen."
The only time Sam isn't around to save his butt, Gollum conveniently falls off a cliff.
The Orcs rescue him from the big Spider and conveniently take him away.
Sam bloody carries him up Mt Doom.
He chooses to wear the ring. If not for Gollum he would have become Sauron Jr.
His big claim to fame is only he can carry the ring it would corrupt anyone else. Well not my boy Sam. He took it when necessary and carried it. The guy is a glorified jewellery model

And Merry and Pippin were involved in some pretty heroic stuff.

For those who think Mr Wood will get an Oscar nomination - it would be more likely if he had been the better actor in his scenes with Sean Astin rather than the lesser.

[Equipoise]

1. Sam IS the hero.

2. Frodo had to deal with the Ring working its bad mojo on him.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by Equipoise
1. Sam IS the hero.

Do you mean that in the books it's clear that Sam is the hero? In the movie half the time the others only ever mention Frodo. It's not like they're saying "I hope Sam is kicking Frodo's sorry ass along." It's more like "Oh, poor Frodo". Even Gandalph at one point bemoans the unreasonable job he gave Frodo as though Sam is having a holiday.

[FriarTed]

It's Frodo's cross even tho Sam's being Simon of Cyrene.

He couldn't have done it without Sam (or Gollum) but he did do it & it broke him for life till he had to go off to The West for healing & rest. Sam was able to have a normal happy life with a REALLY hot wife & adorable kiddies.

[Silentgoldfish]

Originally posted by FriarTed
[snip]Sam was able to have a normal happy life with a REALLY hot wife & adorable kiddies.

I think Faramir won there.

[Crimson Teardrop]

I don't really see Frodo as the hero...he's too innocent and gullible. A character such as Aragorn would have made the "hero thing" better

[Genghis Bob]

Originally posted by don't ask
Do you mean that in the books it's clear that Sam is the hero? In the movie half the time the others only ever mention Frodo. It's not like they're saying "I hope Sam is kicking Frodo's sorry ass along." It's more like "Oh, poor Frodo". Even Gandalph at one point bemoans the unreasonable job he gave Frodo as though Sam is having a holiday.

Why do you insist that there must be only one hero? The main point of the books is that no individual can fulfull the task of destroying the Ring - it takes a Fellowship to do it.

Over eight hours of movie, give or take, the Ring is shown consistently overpowering and corrupting it's owners - usually humans. Frodo is a hero for managing to carry the darned thing all the way to Mordor without becoming Gollum.

Sam is a hero for his steadfast loyalty and bravery in the face of forces he cannot understand, and in the face of the radical changes in his friend (again, that he does not understand).

Aragorn is a hero because - well, 'cause he's just so heroic and all. Even Boromir is a hero for his noble death.

I think the point is that, flawed as each of these individuals are (and each is allowed to show unique weaknesses), the combination of their strengths is sufficient, and necessary, to defeat evil.

[well he's back]

Oh my goodness - one of the questions about LOTR that I find most compelling...
-1st, movie Frodo & Sam are not book Frodo & Sam, tho they come close. In book Frodo never turns his back on Sam (even in the movie he only tells Sam to go home; could be interpreted as a kindness, really)
-Both Wood & Astin were fantastic actors, I thought
-There are indeed many kinds of heroes in this story (it's big enough) :traditional-Aragorn; everyman-Sam; magical-Gandalf; sacrificial-Frodo
-Yes, Merry & Pippin became heroic too. Esp. in the book
-Now, to the main point: Frodo chooses to carry the ring, knowing full well what it is. Sam doesn't. He only carries it when he thinks Frodo is dead. Free will is an important theme. Characters must choose to do the right thing.
-Frodo's pity for Gollum is in a way the point of the whole story. If he had just killed him as Sam had said Frodo would not have been heroic. The quest was able to succeed, through grace, only because of FRODO's pity and compassion. Yes, in a sense, Frodo failed. He gave in to temptation at the end. But he had been through unimaginable stuff and still got as far as he did. In Mordor Sam is still able to hope; Frodo cannot (he cannot remember the taste of food; he sees the wheel of fire with his waking eyes and all else fades...) but still he goes on.

When I was younger, I always saw Sam as the hero. Now (35 years later), it's Frodo.

See also Roger Sale's book on Modern Heroism, where he elaborates on Frodo's character.

PS - I have a friend who insists Gollum is the hero since he's the one who destroyed the ring. He thinks they should build a statue for him in Minas Tirith and have an annual Gollum day.

[Matchka]

"The guy is a dud. Mostly he seems puzzled and indecisive. If he does make a judgement call he is wrong. He's forever sooking and whinging, he frequently hints at giving up. He's inattentive "

I would assert that the one reason Frodo is so resistant to the reing is his total lack of ambition and ability to organize--the kid's a product of priviledge raised by a half-crazy eccentric uncle. The ring wants to organize, rally, deceive, take over the world, etc...the poor thing can't get a foothold in Frodo the way it can in a Human, who desires power and is vexed by an embarrassingly short lifespan; an Elf, who may have lived in the day when Morgoth was in chains and Sauron was just another nasty ghost cruising the world; a Dwarf, who could finally drive evil out from under the ground and delve to whatever wealth is buried; or a Wizard, who could finally get done with all this good/evil crap and get on with organizing a SERIOUS study group.

[don't ask]

We may have become a little spoiler unfriendly here. I tried to hide specifice plot points.

Since my OP after seeing the movie (which I absolutely loved) I've read a bit on the 'net and had a think and in all honesty I'm stunned and somewhat disappointed because :

SPOILER:

Many people rate this as one of the best books ever but by my reckoning it fails in fundemental elements of story telling. I'm glad I never invested the time to read hundreds of pages of story to find that the happy ending is derived by fluke. My understanding of storytelling is that you are cheating if your hero is helped by luck. For mine the real story ends when Frodo fails in his mission - the convenient appearance of Gollum is cheap. It allows the ring to be destroyed without requiring anything of the hero - no brains, no bravery just dumb luck.

.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by Matchka
[I would assert that the one reason Frodo is so resistant to the reing is his total lack of ambition and ability to organize--the kid's a product of priviledge raised by a half-crazy eccentric uncle.

C'mon even I know Bilbo is his cousin.

[Wendell Wagner]

If you're judging the characters of Sam and Frodo according to the Peter Jackson movies, you're going to misunderstand the characters from the book. In fact, if you go by the movies for anything about the story, you're going to misunderstand the book. The movies are at best a pale, distorted shadow of the book. There's no point in even trying to understand the motivations of anything in the movies. Read the book.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by Wendell Wagner
Read the book.

I think I explained above that I would be really pissed off had I read the books.

It reminds me of Extremities starring Farrah Fawcett. The story establishes a really good conundrum. She has trapped a rapist in her house and is threatening to kill him. Her housemates come home and we have this battle of what is right and what is wrong. Should she kill him and bury him in the backyard, or should she call the cops (he has explained why he will get off, quite correctly). Great little problem, eh ...

No to get out of it you suddenly discover he's a serial rapist and will get life...moral dilemma avoided

So I can understand that Tolkien may represent Frodo's problems in a more satisying manner, I just think it fails as storytelling. But shit tell me I'm wrong...my son says I should read the book too.

[well he's back]

Just have to respond once more - Remember Frodo doesn't succeed out of dumb luck and Gollum doesn't just "show up": It's only because of Frodo's pity and true compassion. He's that kind of hero. For the swashbuckling type we have Aragorn. I think it's wonderful storytelling. Tolkien stays true to the end with his idea of the ring being a corrupting agent - it even corrupts Frodo, who has been so strong in fighting it. If Frodo had just tossed it in, now that would not have been good storytelling.

PS - There's other good stuff in the book that had to be left out of the movie. You may not love the book but give it a try.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by well he's back
Just have to respond once more - Gollum doesn't just "show up": It's only because of Frodo's pity and true compassion. He's that kind of hero.

No, once more unto the breach. You're making sense. How does Gollum not just show up...in the movie he falls off a cliff and then reappears at the appropriate moment.

And I assume you are saying that Frodo's pity for Gollum (rather than killing him as Sam wanted) allowed him to finish the story as it did.

[well he's back]

don't ask -
yes, that's exactly what I meant.

and as for Gollum falling off...it's similar to what happens in the book (where Sam fights off Gollum in Shelob's lair). Gollum lays low, the hobbits think he's gone for good, but of course he's been trailing them to Mount Doom all along. Perhaps dear old Prof. Tolkien pulled a rabbit out of a hat here, but then again, knowing the extreme of Gollum's craving and what a wiry old coot he was, I think it's plausible.

[photopat]

I agree with those who say it's not just about 1 hero. The entire fellowship is heroic.

However, Frodo is the most tragic hero, because he's taken on a quest that's virtually impossible, even with Sam's help. At the beginning he doesn't really understand what the ring is, but he goes forward anyway, despite his fear and the terrors he's already faced. By the end of the book he's grown and understands much more what all of them went through and how the ring had destroyed Gollum. He couldn't finish the quest on his own, but perhaps he got closer than anybody else could have.

[GraceTX]

Originally posted by well he's back
-Now, to the main point: Frodo chooses to carry the ring, knowing full well what it is. Sam doesn't. He only carries it when he thinks Frodo is dead. Free will is an important theme. Characters must choose to do the right thing.

I don't agree with that. I think it's the exact opposite. When Frodo takes the ring, he doesn't know what it can do to him. When Sam believes Frodo to be dead, he becomes the true hero of the story. He has seen what carrying the ring has done to Frodo. He also knows the danger he will face by continuing the journey. He knows exactly what he's getting into and chooses to continue the journey anyway and THAT makes him far more heroic than Frodo.

[DaddyTimesTwo]

For those who think Mr Wood will get an Oscar nomination - it would be more likely if he had been the better actor in his scenes with Sean Astin rather than the lesser.

After seeing ROTK for the second time yesterday, I was struck by the realization that Elijah Wood is an awful actor. every goddamn "emotion" was portrayed by him as knitted brows. The guy's gonna have some serious lines on his face when he' older if that's always the way he acts. Perhaps I'm obsessing here, but I was not impressed with his performance at all. I think it would make a good drinking game, actually. "Whenever Frodo knits his brows, drink." You'd be drunk in about 10 minutes.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Matchka

I would assert that the one reason Frodo is so resistant to the reing is his total lack of ambition and ability to organize

So, you're saying I could wear the ring forever?

[Avalonian]

Of course Sam is a hero. And so is Frodo. And so are Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, etc.

SPOILERS ahead.

As others have pointed out, it is only through the efforts of every member of the Fellowship that the Ring is finally destroyed. This is true in both the books and the films. If any part of the Fellowship had failed to accomplish what they did -- from Frodo volunteering to take the Ring at Rivendell (a decisive moment for Frodo, and a key turning point in the story) to Boromir giving his life to save Merry and Pippin to Aragorn's final desperate charge at the Black Gate to Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain -- the quest would have failed.

Frodo may not be the awe-inspiring type of hero you prefer, but he is a hero nonetheless. One of the themes a reader/viewer can take away from Lord of the Rings (in either medium) is that there are different kinds of heroes, and some of them don't have to prove their heroism with a sword.

As for the accusation of Gollum being "pulled out of a hat" at the end, I'd disagree pretty strongly with that. There were strong hints (to me) throughout the story that Gollum's fate was bound to that of the Ring. Call it poetic justice or inevitability if you will, but Gollum eventually being the one to destroy the Ring made perfect sense to me. Frankly, it surprises me that anyone would feel cheated by that... Gollum was shadowing Frodo for three films (or books), and he'd been around for 500 years or so... did you really think he would be that easy to get rid of?

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by Grace
When Sam believes Frodo to be dead, he becomes the true hero of the story. He has seen what carrying the ring has done to Frodo. He also knows the danger he will face by continuing the journey. He knows exactly what he's getting into and chooses to continue the journey anyway and THAT makes him far more heroic than Frodo.

But Frodo knows this every step of the way, and more than that, he's experiencing it, because he's the one who carries the Ring, right into the mouth of the volcano... and you're saying that carrying it for a day or two (less, in the film) makes Sam the "true hero"? Interesting.

I disagree, obviously... though Sam is certainly heroic for other reasons, Frodo bore the large majority of the burden of the Ring, and is a hero for that, as well as for agreeing to take it when nobody else would in Rivendell.

Originally posted by DaddyTimesTwo
After seeing ROTK for the second time yesterday, I was struck by the realization that Elijah Wood is an awful actor. every goddamn "emotion" was portrayed by him as knitted brows.

If you're only watching ROTK, I might agree. But the other day I had the opportunity to watch Fellowship yet again, and I was struck by how different his performance was in that film. For the first half of FOTR, Frodo's face is clear and light, free of worry. No knitted brows there... he was all smiles and laughter. The comparison between Frodo in the first film and the third is remarkable. If you're only looking at Wood's performance in the third film, I think you're missing out on this perspective.

Even after the Ring is gone, Frodo's face is still deeply troubled. I still say that Wood's performance here, over the course of the three films, is quite excellent. It's hard to see it on the basis of any one of the films, though... you really need the broader perspective for it.

[well he's back]

I'll butt in once more, to second what Avalonian has been saying:

-I agree that Elijah Wood looks and acts very different in the 1st and 3rd films. And remember everything was shot out of sequence, making his (along with everyone else's in the films) that much more admirable!

-I also agree with your points about the entire Fellowship being necessary. Again, I also think you've got a good point about Sam being heroic, but Frodo being more so. Frodo did carry the ring longer and understood its effects better. And let's not forget Frodo's willingness and desire to do the right thing, both when Gandalf told him about the ring in the Shire and also at the Council in Rivendell.

[Tallayan]

Its allready been mostly done, but I'm just going to add my own little speil about the ending. One thing you need to remember is that Tolkein was a devout Catholic, and as such had a strong belief that humanity (and I guess, hobbanity?) cannot be saved by themselves alone, but only through the grace of christ. This is represented in the story that Frodo, though he was very strong, could not destroy the ring himself. But because he showed compassion towards Gollum, the ring was destroyed.

[well he's back]

Oops - typo in last post - I meant to say shooting the 3 films out of sequence made the entire cast's remarkable performances that much more remarkable..

[don't ask]

Originally posted by Tallayan
Its allready been mostly done, but I'm just going to add my own little speil about the ending. One thing you need to remember is that Tolkein was a devout Catholic, and as such had a strong belief that humanity (and I guess, hobbanity?) cannot be saved by themselves alone, but only through the grace of christ. This is represented in the story that Frodo, though he was very strong, could not destroy the ring himself. But because he showed compassion towards Gollum, the ring was destroyed.

Very, very good perspective. Thank you.

I may add I've been browsing the 'net since my OP and all the best information I'm getting is here.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

SPOILER:

Gandalf did mention in Fellowship of the Ring that it was pity that stayed Biblo's hand. And when Frodo came across Gollum, it was the same pity that stayed his hand, for Frodo, from learning about Gollum's past (told by Gandalf), he had compassion on him. Instead of removing an immediate threat by killing Gollum, or leaving hm there to starve, he decided to show compassion and pity towards Gollum.

Frodo is a different, complete type of hero, the everyday man who tried to rise up to the occasion even though he knew he could not, but he would try anyway, even if he failed. And yes, from the letters that Tolkien wrote, he intended it to be such from the beginning. Frodo's heroic is in deciding to bear the burden in the first place, persisting in the quest when the going get tough, sparing Gollum out from compassion. It is his compassion which save the quest at the end of the day, for it is Gollum who in the end indirectly destroyed the ring. Even Gandalf has a fore-telling of Gollum's part in quest in FoTR.

Missing from the film is how Sam showed compassion towards Gollum on Mount Doom itself. Sam has drawn his sword against Gollum and Frodo had raced off to the cracks of doom himself. Sam delayed on a moment whether he shall kill Gollum or not, but in the end decides to let him off. So according to the book, Gollum's presence at the Cracks of Doom is not mere luck. Twice he would have not been there if not for the compassion and kindness of the two hobbits. He's hardly the Deus Ex Machina. He's just another contestant after the ring.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by LostCause

Not wishing to quote a spoiler. Very interesting stuff. I think Mr Jackson should have joined the SDMB. I'm sure that the way the story is told does not show some of the elements discussed here. The people I saw it with all felt like I did.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

The important thing about the movie is that one must watch RoTK with the Fellowship and the Two Towers in mind. For in RoTK,

SPOILER:

Frodo has already weaken to such an extent that he is doing all the wrong things, and that he really need Sam by his side. Frodo as a hero is only clearer when in Fellowship and the Two Towers. There's also a notable part about Frodo in the Scouring of the Shire, which was not mentioned in the movie. In a battle of hobbits against Saurman's thugs, Frodo played the part of peace, preventing hobbits killing the thugs who has surrendered. His final dialogue with Saurman proved how strong he has began since after embarking on the quest. Before the quest, he was wishing to that Gollum has been killed. After the quest, he refused to kill Saurman, who was responsible for the chaos and suffering in the Shire.

[kung fu lola]

I guess who you see as more heroic depends on what you value -Frodo is all about lofty ideals, things that exist in the abstract. Sam's heroism is more salt-of-the-earth. Frodo's burden is the corruption of The Ring (duh) that is constantly pulling at him and tempting him. Sam's burden is, well, Frodo. He cares for Frodo's basic physical needs for safety and food.

You can organize Sam and Frodo's roles according to Maslow's heirarchy of needs: Air, food and water are at the bottom (2/3 courtesy of Sam). Next comes safety (Again, Sam's forte). Then belonging and love (this is where Sam and Frodo overlap). After that are Esteem, followed by Fulfillment. Those are provinces of Frodo, in the sense of self-respect and mastery.

[Avalonian]

One final note on Elijah Wood's portryal of Frodo in ROTK, then I'll shut up about it.

SPOILERS again.

For most of the film, Wood had the "knitted brows" thing going. However, his easy smile at the end, as he looked back at his friends and nodded before sailing into the West, was purely delightful. Finally, all the cares he had travelled with were truly lifted and he was his old self (as we saw in Fellowship) once again.

Dammit, it's making me misty just remembering it. If he can do that much with just a change of expression, I can't say it was bad acting. A fine performace, all around.

[photopat]

One point about Gollum and the ring. In the book (haven't seen ROTK yet, so I don't know if this appears or not) When they're climbing Mount Doom Sam sees a "vision" of Gollum cowering before Frodo. There's a glowing eye where the ring should be on the chain around Frodo's neck and a voice comes out of the ring telling Gollum if he ever tries to touch it again it will cast him down and destroy him.

Of course, the next time he tries to touch it, well, you know.

So, the ring, full of it's creator's evil, destroyed itself.

[don't ask]

Originally posted by photopat
One point about Gollum and the ring. In the book (haven't seen ROTK yet, so I don't know if this appears or not) When they're climbing Mount Doom Sam sees a "vision" of Gollum cowering before Frodo. There's a glowing eye where the ring should be on the chain around Frodo's neck and a voice comes out of the ring telling Gollum if he ever tries to touch it again it will cast him down and destroy him.

Of course, the next time he tries to touch it, well, you know.

So, the ring, full of it's creator's evil, destroyed itself.

Wow this is very cool. I think I'm going to have to read a book I don't want to read.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by photopat
In the book (haven't seen ROTK yet, so I don't know if this appears or not) When they're climbing Mount Doom Sam sees a "vision" of Gollum cowering before Frodo. There's a glowing eye where the ring should be on the chain around Frodo's neck and a voice comes out of the ring telling Gollum if he ever tries to touch it again it will cast him down and destroy him.

This wasn't in the theatrical release of the film (somewhat to my disappointment), but I'm wondering if it will make it into the Extended Edition. It's such a quick thing, but fairly important, too.

[SPOOFE]

How does Gollum not just show up

Because it's been foreshadowed and established up the yin-yang that Gollum could not keep himself from pursuing the Ring up until the very end. Frankly, I can't see any other inevitable ending that doesn't have Gollum show up at the last minute. Tolkein set up that ending perfectly. Instead, you make it sound like a total deus ex machina that came out of left field. Trust me, man... 'at ain't the case.

[rowrrbazzle]

I highly recommend the letters of Tolkien. In them he reveals many reasons the story went the way it did. One of the most interesting letters is number 246 where he deals with several what-if questions. For example, what if Gollum had not been there to destroy the ring and Frodo kept it? Hint: he wouldn't have kept it for long.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Avalonian
I'm wondering if it will make it into the Extended Edition

I wouldn't be surprised. I heard a passing rumor that the Extended ROTK is going to approach five hours.

[Dangerosa]

don't ask,

Get it on tape. The unabridged. Listen to it in your car on the way to work (or on headphones on the bus or whatever).

This is a way better story told than read.

[Fish]

Let me butt in here and add some amplification to another aspect of Tolkien's writing that the movie does only imperfect justice to: the Ring Saga as an epic story. Spoilers abound.

That is to say, the Ring was destroyed only because Frodo spared Gollum. Gollum only sought the Ring because Bilbo did not kill Gollum in his cave under the Misty Mountains; Gollum only found the Ring because Isildur failed to destroy it because of Sauron's own powers.

Or to trace back another thread into antiquity: movie-Saruman was defeated by the Ents because the Ents marched on Isengard; the Ents marched only because Pippin showed Treebeard the extent of Saruman's destruction of the forest; Pippin was only at Fangorn because Boromir sacrificed himself; movie-Boromir was only at Rivendell because his father Denethor sent him to collect the Ring; Denethor only needed the Ring because of the immiment threat of attack by Sauron's own powers.

At the end of The Two Towers Sam makes some comments about the great tales, and how people in them do not know how the tale will end, but they continue on inside the tale. This concept is lifted directly from the books. Sam even looks at the glass of Ëarendil's star, captured in the light of the star-glass that Frodo carries, and comments that, in a way, he and Frodo are still part of the story of Beren One-Hand and the Great Jewel, since they carry a piece of that story with them. Obliquely, Tolkien is alluding to his own story-telling device. And hey, how about that song, and the famous Tolkien poem "The Roads Go Ever Ever On?" That's a hint, too.

Tolkien's point is that things don't happen for no reason, but are based upon things that happened in the past, choices that people once made, actions they once took, and paths that people followed of old. There is little room for chance in Tolkien's world. Characters collide and re-intersect like some kind of literary Brownian motion, and an action taken now will have a repercussion to be felt later.

I'm not describing it very well, but it's there.

FISH

[well he's back]

Interesting comments, FISH. I was sort of subconsciously aware of your point; thanks for bringing it to the forefront.

Also, way earlier in the thread Tallayan made a wonderful summary of the theme of grace. (Yet another spin: Frodo is a Christ-like character, but for someone with Tolkien's sensibilities, believing in original sin, there can only be one Christ. Therefore even Frodo was doomed to fail without the grace he gained by pity and compassion.)

Re Sam and Frodo's heroism, another thought: Frodo carried the ring out of a love of the Shire and other free peoples; Sam carried the ring out of a love (non-sexual) for Frodo. Is one love greater than the other? Hard to say.

[gentle]

Good article on Frodo vs. Sam, nice analysis of book vs. films.

[Wendell Wagner]

don't ask writes:

> I think I explained above that I would be really pissed off had I
> read the books.

I think that you're going by someone's summary of the book that doesn't really explain Frodo's or Sam's motivations or the point of many of the occurrences in the book. Hard as it may be to believe, _The Lord of the Rings_ is easy to betray by a summary. I think that part of the problem with the script for Jackson's films is that they sound like they were written by someone who hadn't read the books for five years and, while they got the place and character names right, misunderstood the point of many scenes and the motivations of many characters. And someone who, because they didn't understand the point and the motivations, felt free to make up their own scenes and dialogue, because they made just as much sense to them as the vaguely remembered scenes from their distant memories.

(My apologies for replying to a comment so far back in the thread. You may already understand my point.)

[Marks 1st wife]

I think I am the preamble queen... so here goes...
(sorry if this is considered too far off thread)
(no one will likely be my friend after this )
(I realize this isn't the way Tolkien wrote the book, so who am I?)
(may or may not be a spoiler)

For Sam to be an uber hero, he would have shoved all his feelings to the background and taken into consideration the full effects of NOT having the ring destroyed and pushed Frodo over the edge when he reailized that Frodo was unable to let go.

[Horseflesh]

My wife was shocked after we watched the first movie and I commented that Sam was the real hero of the War of the Ring in my book. My explanation:

Sam wasn't there to save the world. He wasn't there to get his name into the songs of legend. The only reason for making the journey he did was to be with and protect his dearest friend in any way he could. He would have never gone had Frodo not been wrapped up in it. He saw what the Ring was doing to his friend (and what it had done to Gollum), yet he knew how much it meant to Frodo to keep going, and he even bravely (and briefly) carried the Ring himself, not knowing what it might do to him. He didn't want to see his beloved Mr. Frodo at the Crack of Doom (or for that matter anywhere near this War), yet he complied with his friend's wishes and pushed (and carried) him when he needed to. He faced death many times for no reason other than to stick by his friend. I want a friend like Samwise Gamgee.

Frodo, OTOH, was at least somewhat aware of the dangers of carrying the Ring. He had no idea if he could resist it or what might become of him in carrying it, yet he allowed himself to be the bearer and took a huge risk to his life and health (almost like volunteering to be injected with a most likely lethal disease, but doing so because you don't want anyone else to be subjected to it).

Frodo's compassion for Gollum at first stemmed from Bilbo's and Gandalf's preachings, then later as he realized what the Ring would do to one's soul, will, and mind. He felt sort of a brotherly connection to Gollum in enduring what G had for 500 years, except G didn't realize beforehand the dangers involved in possessing the Ring. That's what stayed Frodo's hand (and caused him to stay Sam's hand more than once). Gollum had completely fallen under the power of the Ring (not unlike a severe crack addict).

And don't forget that the Ring is as much a character in this story as it is a prop. It could cause events to go a certain way, such as Isildur losing it in the river (rather than on the ground); making itself appear to Deagol; calling to the more evilly inclined Smeagol to take his cousin's life and possess it; making Gollum lose it in the Misty Mountains so Bilbo could find it and get closer to it's real master; causing Frodo more than once to wear it at very inopportune times; and finally, calling to it's nearest ally (Gollum) when it sensed that it was about to be undone at Mt. Doom. Unfortunately the Ring doesn't control things absolutely, it can only set them in motion. Frodo suddenly claims the Ring for himself, but Gollum is already enroute. The book and the film differ a bit at this point -- Gollum dances with joy at recovering his Precious, but loses his balance and goes over the edge (something the Ring can't control). A key point IMO, as the film shows Frodo shoving him over the edge. Excepting Sam, neither of the parties present wanted to destroy the Ring at that point. Ah well, the job is done anyway.

So, did I read too much into the characters or what?

[Tarrsk]

Originally posted by Horseflesh
A key point IMO, as the film shows Frodo shoving him over the edge. Excepting Sam, neither of the parties present wanted to destroy the Ring at that point. Ah well, the job is done anyway.

Frodo doesn't push Gollum off, they both lose their footing and fall off together. I didn't get the feeling that Frodo was trying to destroy the Ring- you can see the anger/hate in his eyes, and he pointedly grabs at Gollum's hands throughout the struggle. If he wanted to destroy it, just shoving Gollum hard would've worked better.