Artemis

Both, but more the latter than the former. There are changes to his personality and his role. My major quibble is probably that, in the book, he is more mature and competent than shown in the films. He is learned, he has wisdom and aids the group more than once with it. (In fact, his name means 'wise', and there's no chance that Tolkien didn't choose that on purpose.) In the book he is more of a leader, especially during the first half of 'Fellowship' when it's just the four Hobbits making their way (a much longer part of the story than it was in the film), and then again later when it's just him and Sam. The other Hobbits, particularly Sam and Pippin, tend to wear their emotions on their sleeves and fly off at the mouth. Frodo is more reserved, considerate and careful. This comes in quite handy on a stealth mission, but in the film it's never really useful, it just comes across as introspective or brooding. He's diplomatic, an adept negotiator, courageous and resolute in a way that's *occasionally* shown on screen but not overtly acknowledged, because Sam's more flashy bravery overshadows it (which I'm not necessarily complaining about; loyalty and bravery are Sam's best qualities and he deserves to be acknowledged for them too). He speaks up for the group, stands up to Boromir, Faramir, Saruman, and other threats; but does so using speech and intelligence rather than taking to the sword (though he will reach for the sword as a last resort). But none of that really comes across in the films, where he's portrayed more as a sweet and sheltered innocent with very little self-assurance. In the book, he speaks more often with greater firmness and conviction. Also, he’s a tad sassy from time to time, lol. He's stronger than shown on screen as well. In the films, when he gets stabbed by the troll in Moria, he's completely unharmed because he's wearing the Mithril chainmail given to him by Bilbo. In the book, the Mithril only stops it from being a fatal blow. He is pretty seriously wounded, but he presses on with his injury halfway to Lorien without complaint. Throughout the books he demonstrates fortitude of his own kind as well as incredible willpower, which is again overshadowed by Sam's in the films; but Sam is not carrying the Ring. It seems like people either don't understand or forget just how difficult, nigh impossible, of a task that is. It's not that the films *never* illustrate Frodo's willpower; but they don't do it much, and the potency of it as part of his own strength of character is lost because he's shown being saved and rescued so often. And now that I think of it, maybe that's really what I don't like most about the changes to his character in the films. To a large extent he's been relegated to the role of damsel in distress. He spends a lot of time looking scared and helpless and falling over. I totally agree with you that he does seem too ethereal, although that's not entirely a digression from the book. He is different from other Hobbits. Under Bilbo's tutelage he learned to speak fluent Elvish (which by itself confers on the speaker a more ethereal aura), and additionally was influenced by Bilbo's experience and knowledge of the outside world. So by the time he was grown, he had developed a comprehensive understanding of matters that most other Hobbits don't care to know. This imbued him with a somewhat more erudite and spiritual air, along with an atypical (for a Hobbit) interest in peoples outside the Shire, with whom he holds intelligent conversations. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Elves even gave him the title of 'Elf-friend'. So in a sense, he *is* rather more 'Elvish' than your average Hobbit. The problem is that in the movie it's exaggerated, because they watered down his depth of character until his ethereal quality was kind of all that was left. And then they had to try to balance it out by having Frodo make some misguided decisions, mostly regarding Sam. But again, in the book those things never happened because Frodo trusted Sam and was every bit as loyal to Sam as Sam was to Frodo. It just showed itself differently because Frodo was the one carrying the Ring. Not with specific details; it's been quite some time since I've read the book, so my memory's fuzzy. I just remember noticing it. Smeagol's of course the biggest example, and if that were the only one I think it would be enough. Sam doesn't encounter all that many people on his journey besides Smeagol who might require his compassion. But I vaguely recall incidents with Farmer Maggot, and Strider; scenes not included in the film. I think all of it stems from suspicion and distrust, which is understandable, especially given the weight of their mission. And the suspicion itself stems partially from his unflinching loyalty to Frodo, which I'm not reproaching. That's an admirable trait. But the downside is that his distrust often expresses itself as harsh and unfair words, and at times an intolerant or unforgiving nature. Depending on what type of person you are I suppose you could view that as a positive or negative trait, but for me it's a negative and not something I'd want to emulate. Mercy was a theme in LotR and a quality important to Tolkien, and it's important to me. I'm not saying that his suspicion was wrong. In a way it was a good thing, because it made him the fierce protector that Frodo needed. And particularly in the case of Gollum, he was right to distrust him; but he was not right to be unkind to him, and that's where the difference lies for me. In the book Frodo didn't trust or like Smeagol any more than Sam did; in fact he was at times so repulsed by him, and wanted rid of him so much, that he was tempted to let Faramir shoot him at the Forbidden Pool. But he was never mean to him. I'm also not saying that Sam is devoid of compassion. It should be noted that in the end, even he took pity on Gollum. He could have killed him during their scuffle on Mount Doom, and he didn't. (Honestly that was one of my favorite Sam scenes in the book; also changed/not included in the movie.) But by then it was too late for Gollum to be saved. The interesting thing about the personality differences between the Hobbits is that many of those traits have their source in Hobbit culture itself. In Hobbiton, there exists a bias against the Hobbits that live outside of Hobbiton. Hobbiton is very self-contained, and the Hobbits that live there regard themselves with a kind of superiority. This bias is displayed by Sam quite a few times in the book and hinted at once in the 'Fellowship' film, with the line "Never trust a Brandybuck and a Took!" (The Tooks being known for their inclination towards adventure, considered a very 'un-Hobbitish' behavior, and the Brandybucks viewed as strange both for living by the river Brandywine outside of Hobbiton and for their greater affinity for water, another 'un-Hobbitish' behavior. It should also be noted that the bias goes both ways to a degree, because the Hobbits across the Brandywine don't like the superior attitude of the Hobbits in Hobbiton and think them strange for being so afraid of water.) Frodo is half Brandybuck, orphaned at a young age after his parents drowned in a boat (a death which many Hobbits of Hobbiton consider his parents' own fault, since they had no business doing something so 'un-Hobbitish'). And spending most of his life in Hobbiton, where he is automatically viewed as 'strange' and 'different' by parentage alone (plus living with Bilbo, who is already considered a kook by this point), he understands how it feels to be treated like an outsider and regarded with suspicion. An experience which makes him more forgiving and accepting of outsiders and outcasts, and more open to the outside world. Sam has no such experience; and thus is more narrow-minded, more rigid, more suspicious and less accepting. Once you understand the internal dynamics of the Shire and how each of the Hobbits' pedigrees and upbringings within the Shire influence them, you can see how it comes out in their personalities and behaviors in all sorts of little ways throughout the book. I love that stuff. The films do it too, but you wouldn't really catch it unless you were familiar with the book. For example, going back to the water thing: In the 'Fellowship' movie, we see that Sam does not swim; which is because he's from Hobbiton, where they distrust water. At the same time, we see Frodo operate a boat; which is because he was born to a Brandybuck, who teach their offspring to swim and boat. At the beginning of the film, Merry is the one who comes up with the idea of escaping via Bucklebury Ferry; because he is a Brandybuck, and would know all the waterways. Just cool little details. Anyway, I would like to end this by making clear that I am not anti-Sam, by any means, lol. I love Sam, and he deserves every bit of fan love he gets. I just feel that Frodo is a highly misunderstood character, mostly because of how he was presented in the film, and partly because of how Sam was presented as well.

^ Ditto to that! Sadly they only seem to exist in fiction, which is perhaps why I'm perpetually single. Frodo and Faramir are my two favorite characters from the books, I think mostly because they were the two I most related to. Really though, I love all the characters of the fellowship almost equally, along with a few characters that weren't in the movies. Glorfindel was intriguing to me, for the brief bit he appeared, and Frodo's conversation with Gildor was one of my favorite parts of the book. I found it pretty thought-provoking and revealing, of Frodo's character especially. I understand why it was left out of the film, but I was a little sad about it. Honestly though they changed Frodo's character a lot in the film, so it wouldn't have fit anyway. Aside from Gildor and the changes to Frodo's character, I was bummed that they left out The Scouring of the Shire. That was an important scene because it was meant to show that war touches everyone. I think PJ might have missed the message on that one, though again, I get why they had to leave things out. I have issues with the characterization of Merry and Pippin as well, and the overuse of Arwen, and other things they changed or left out of the films. I really missed the scene in the Fellowship book where Merry and Pippin intercept Frodo's plan at Crickhollow and insist on going with him. It really highlighted the unbreakable friendship between them all. In the films they are much more clueless and just sort of stumble into the adventure. I also missed seeing the scene with the barrow-wights, but that's just a personal fave. A major gripe of mine is the change to Faramir's character when he first meets Frodo; having him force Frodo and the Ring to Gondor before finally letting them go, instead of helping Frodo and being virtually disinterested in the power of the Ring, as he was in the book. My biggest gripe, though, is the scene in RotK where Gollum turns Frodo against Sam. That never happened in the books, and never would happen, because Frodo was as loyal to Sam as Sam was to him. But the movie nearly vilifies Frodo and victimizes Sam with this scene, and in turn gives its audience the wrong idea of these characters, which vexes me greatly. People who haven't read the books and don't know any better say all sorts of nasty things about Frodo, and it makes me quite sad, especially as I relate so closely to his character. It's kind of the same feeling I get when other characters in "Sherlock" say unkind things to/about Sherlock, except in this case it's real people hating on Frodo, not fictional characters. And what's more, this modified scene of Frodo becoming suspicious of Sam replaced one of the most important scenes in the entire book. What should have happened, what was happening in the book at this part, was the tipping point of a conflict within Gollum. He was watching Frodo sleep, and seemed to be rethinking his course of action. He knew he was leading them to Shelob's lair, but his affection for Frodo was winning over, and he gave Frodo a soft, affectionate pet. In the book it says his eyes changed. It was heavily implied that he could have been redeemed in that moment; but Sam awoke, misunderstood Gollum's posture, snapped and called him a 'sneak'. Gollum's eyes immediately changed back, and whatever hope there was for him was then lost. It was the final nail in the coffin. It's a vital lesson about the necessity and importance of compassion and the power of one's words, but it was scrapped and replaced in the film with that travesty of a 'betrayal' scene. Boo. BOO I say. A lot of people who know only the films and not the books say that Sam is their favorite character, and I understand why. Sam has many great qualities, and the movie illustrates them beautifully. But it mostly ignores and/or excuses his greatest flaw (in my view), which is his lack of compassion (for anyone but Frodo and Bill the Pony). It's not that he has no compassion, he certainly does; but he is arguably the least compassionate of the Hobbits, and in the case above, one could say his unkindness towards Gollum in particular is indirectly responsible for Frodo's encounter with Shelob. Thankfully Sam is also loyal and brave, and he was able to rectify that situation. I suppose I'd better stop or I could ramble on about this forever. I just wish that the films had not made Frodo look bad to make Sam look better. And I wish they had not done the same to Faramir. Frodo and Faramir are really the only two characters who are noble while being more studious and less inclined to warrior traits (and therefore less power-seeking), and I wonder if PJ just had a hard time understanding heroes who aren't fighters.

That's what I was thinking. Actually a lot of the threads in this subforum could be used for that purpose, lol.

I've seen Squid Game, but not Dexter. I really liked Squid Game, but I had to watch it in Korean with English subtitles. I tried first with the English dub and it was so distractingly bad. It took too much away from the emotion conveyed by the actors.

Oh let's see... I've seen "Death on the Nile", "Moonfall", "Uncharted", "Spiderman: No Way Home"... All were just okay, nothing to write home about. "Death on the Nile" was probably the best of them. "Moonfall" wasn't as awful as everyone's making it out to be, and "No Way Home" wasn't as wonderful as everyone's making it out to be. I actually thought it was rather... not good. I absolutely loved the Spiderman team-up, it gave me all the good feels. But that didn't quite make up for the plot, dialogue, and acting, all of which were subpar, in my opinion. Might be seeing "The Batman" tomorrow, maybe that'll be good.

I watched that one when it aired, and quite enjoyed it. I haven't been able to find a single thing worth my time lately. Season 2 of "Resident Alien" started in January, and I am dreadfully disappointed. It is not funny or even interesting anymore at all. The writing is lazy, aimless and senseless. The dialogue is weird. The characters are unlikable. The acting is annoying. The humor is cringey. It is stuffed with boring subplots that go nowhere and have absolutely no bearing on the main character or storyline, whatever that's supposed to be. There is no story. There's practically no alien. He hardly gets any screen time anymore. It's actually awful. I really had fun watching the first season (in spite of some cringey humor there too), so I've been suffering through season 2, hoping for a change. But after the horror show that was episode 3, I'm ready to throw in the towel. I've never seen a show jump the shark so quickly and inexplicably. It's sad, it had so much potential. Guess I'm back to shuffling through my streaming services, hoping to land on a hidden gem.

But y'all haven't been around, lol. Thank you, though. There may be, but I have no idea how it can be done in a way that actually benefits everyone including myself. That's the problem with being a useful person. When you're no longer useful, you're not anything. It's next to impossible to set boundaries, even minor ones, because no one respects or loves you enough as a person, outside of your usefulness, to compromise at all. If they can't get everything they want from you, they just move on from you. And then your boundaries start to resemble a kind of solitary confinement. So you're stuck between a choice of two extremes: Let yourself be used, or resign yourself to being alone. I go back and forth between the two, though for some years now I've basically just chosen solitary. I've got very little left in me, I'm too tired to be useful. I feel as though I've been wrung dry. Oh I have volunteered for many years. Every year since I was 10 or 11, up until a couple years ago. It's never really done anything for me, socially. People take an immediate dislike to me. I don't know why, maybe I'm just too weird or awkward or quiet. Whatever it is, somehow I always end up shuffled to some back-room project away from everyone else, so they can continue having their fun without me. I'm not even exaggerating when I say "immediate", they usually don't even talk to me before they decide they don't like me. And if they don't actively dislike me, then they just have zero interest in getting to know me. People don't understand me, and admittedly I have trouble relating to them. A few months ago, I was listening to some ladies at my workplace who are all friends with each other having a conversation. One was talking about her kids, another was talking about shopping for a new dress for her "hot date" that night, and the other was saying she couldn't wait to get home so she could drink some wine and watch "The Bachelor". I related to 0% of that. Even if I had been part of their little group, I would have nothing at all to contribute to their conversation. A few days later I was trying to socialize a little with a different group in the break room, and something they said reminded me of "The Lord of the Rings", so I made a joking reference, and they looked at me like I was from another planet. Not that it matters now, anyway, because they've all transitioned to working from home. I'm just about the only one left who still has to come in to the office. I just never meet anyone like me, who shares my interests or thinks like I do. Even interest groups are about the same. Everyone comes with their friends, and they're not interested in talking to people they don't know. On occasion there will be a lone straggler, but they're always one-timers who never show up again because they've figured out the same thing I've figured out. Sometimes I converse with that person and think we may have begun to develop a rapport, but it's never enough to motivate them to come back. In any case, even if I thought some good might come of it, I don't have time for volunteering or interest groups at the moment. I work about 75 hours per week since getting an additional job last year, and even more hours than that of late. There's been a huge (and unusual, for this time of year) spike in deaths, starting right around Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I suppose people must be stressed. I'm stressed too. If I keep this up, maybe I won't have to worry about living to old age after all.

I've been pondering that same question a lot these past few weeks. My dog is starting to show his age. I think he's going to be the last pet I own, because if I got another one and something happened to me, who would take care of it? Who would even know? I already worry so much about my dog. It's a ways off yet, but I wonder who is going to take care of me when I'm old enough to need taking care of. My best bet is to die before I reach that point, I guess. I have no friends, no significant other, and barely a family. I don't even have coworkers or neighbors to talk to. The only numbers in my phone are my parents, my bosses, and emergency medical facilities. I'm used to being alone and without human contact for long periods of time, but I think it's taking a toll right now. They say no man is an island, but it sure does feel that way some days.

Every "friend" I've ever had has been just like that, on the phone and in person. It seems my lot in life to be a sounding board. I'm glad to be someone that people feel comfortable turning to in need, but at the same time it does get wearing to be used. I put "friend" in quotes because it only seems to flow one way. I doubt a single one of them knew anything about me. As soon as they find another person to fill their need, I'm dropped. If I were not useful, I don't think anyone would ever talk to me at all.

[Link]

Yes. I'd prefer them not to be, but I need formal wear for work, which is typically polyester or some blend. I don't have many choices either, in terms of what will fit me right, so I generally have to take what I can get.

Ditto. Ditto again. I don't think I've ever had an actual lucid dream, where I can control anything in my dream. But I often become aware that I'm dreaming within my dream. I just can't do anything with that knowledge, except occasionally force myself to wake up.

I use dryer sheets but not liquid fabric softener. We never used liquid when I was growing up because it was an extra expense we couldn't afford, and my parents always claimed it wore clothes out faster. I've never tried it and thus never really felt a need for it. Dryer sheets, though, I use mostly to reduce static.

It's my birthday on Saturday and I decided to treat myself to a birthday present. Something entirely unnecessary instead of one of the many things I've been needing, lol. But I can't decide on what. I'm on a LotR/fantasy kick lately, so I was thinking something LotR-themed. Perhaps a new phone case, or a candle holder. I saw this pretty "Elvish" lantern on Etsy. Or, I could add to my weapons collection. I've been eyeing a fractal-burned staff for quite awhile now. I recently learned that there are stretches you can do with a bo staff as well, and that's something I'd probably like to try; keep myself flexible. I would treat myself to a movie, but there's never anything good released in early January. Anyhoo, I am just rambling to avoid going to bed.

That's a bit how I feel about spending time with my brother's family. Christmas for me was hectic and very draining, and I think I might have preferred to spend it alone this year. I'm desperately in need of some time to myself. Ebeneezer, lol. I'm assuming you're calling him that to imply that he's something of a Scrooge about Christmas, and not because it's his real name.

Same! I also call them "frustration dreams".

I was looking through some of my old journal entries today, and I came across this strange dream I wrote about over a decade ago. Thought I would post it here for your amusement. ...

Looks like it! It's a ghost town around here! Nice to see you here still. How was your Christmas?

Hello my fine fellow forum-dwellers. Just stopping by to wish you all a very Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.

New “Ten Rings” trailer.