Poll of the Day > Does anyone think that Lord of the Rings would be better if Frodo wasn't in it?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Frodo always comes off as super whiny and wimpy in the movies, and him being such a dickhead to Sam made me hate him even more.

I think that liking Sam way more than Frodo is the default opinion.

---

Mead posted...

I think that liking Sam way more than Frodo is the default opinion.

Yeah, that said the movies weren't super kind to Frodo (what the fuck is with that lembas bread subplot). The fact that he's not as tough or strong as the other hobbits is the point. He's a bookish nerd, almost like an author insert in a way.

His kindness and decision to spare Gollum is what ultimately won the day, and that's intentional.

---

nah, Frodo is an integral part of the LotR story

---

fuck no

---

It would have been better if the ghost army wasn't in it, or at least established clearly in the opening of Fellowship of the Ring. It also would've been better if everyone didn't wanna blow hobbits so much in general.

Raddest_Chad posted...

if everyone didn't wanna blow hobbits so much in general.

I feel like they were adequately shit on throughout the series.

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I feel like they were adequately shit on throughout the series.

especially when they walked behind the horses

---

What? Frodo is awesome. He's not talented in any way (except stealth), but he's the only one humble and innocent enough to be near the ring. He's the inspiration that kept the fellowship together.

---

Yellow posted...

What? Frodo is awesome. He's not talented in any way (except stealth), but he's the only one humble and innocent enough to be near the ring. He's the inspiration that kept the fellowship together.

Ya but frodo was super whiny tho

Absolutely! I always hated the Frodo parts of the trilogy, even the other two hobbits were much better just for the comedy relief and general charm.
The only thing tolerable about the Frodo scenes was Sam.

Yellow posted...

What? Frodo is awesome. He's not talented in any way (except stealth), but he's the only one humble and innocent enough to be near the ring. He's the inspiration that kept the fellowship together.

Sam seemed to deal with the temptation of being near the ring just fine. It's like people straight up forget he was there that whole time, too...

No, it wouldn't be. I didn't like how the movie portrayed him. They made him weak and useless. Actually, I felt that they mostly did that to the hobbits and dwarves. It's like they had a thing against short people. They also exaggerated bad aspects and diminished good ones. Sorry, but I take personality very seriously, and if they take out good personality traits and actions, it bothers me.

---

Maybe... but Sam wouldn't be so loyal if there was no Frodo?

Apparently Sam was just as resistant as Frodo but had less exposure. It's not like Gandalf knew exactly which one would do better.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKIgv8AhffA&list=PLpyK4qKgaszGscV4c2ePIGunWZiKDEK3c&index=76

---

Yellow posted...

Maybe... but Sam wouldn't be so loyal if there was no Frodo?

Apparently Sam was just as resistant as Frodo but had less exposure. It's not like Gandalf knew exactly which one would do better.

Neither one would have been able to accomplish the task alone. They only succeeded because they were together.

Sam as more annoying than Frodo.

---

No.

---

I feel like PotD would be better without thedeerzord in it #roasted

---