Steph, that's precisely the understanding I got from the books.

t does the dance of perceptiveness, which, oddly is not unlike the dance of finding a Krispy Kreme with the "hot" light on

Frodo's been in pain for years, yes? Both mental and physical. After his experience as the ringbearer, he really wasn't part of the world of the Shire any more

Yupp. I know some people got it - but I think it's a notable misstep on Jackson's part that soo many people I've talked to didn't get it AT ALL. I mean - he's the main character and that's how his story ends - kind of bad place to leave people wondering.

Lots and lots of people must be OK with it though - or they wouldn't feel so passionate about the movie - but still - seems to be a big question mark for some.

My parents didn't really get it either. This is the reason I'd like to see that section expanded in the EE. Except that the EE is mostly for the obsessives like us who already get it, so, maybe I just invalidated my own point. Huh.

Nice get, Steph, on both points. I think it is ironic that PJ, who has made a number of creative choices on the (quite reasonable, but I'm obsessive) grounds that you have to consolidate plot threads for the cinema, fails to get across one of his primary threads (war is hell, it changes people, there is a price) in the main character, for viewers who haven't read the books.

I hadn't read the books yet when I saw the movie (actually, haven't read the end of RotK yet -- I'm about 1/3 of the way through reading TTT), and when I saw that scene, my thought process was pretty much, "Why's Frodo leaving? Oh, right, I guess when he came back, he couldn't really fit into his old life in the Shire anymore. Like shell-shocked veterans, I guess. Oh. OH! Duh. Wonder what's been happening to him? How much time has passed now, anyway?" So, I got it, but it was more of a working-backwards thought process than seeing things that would inevitably lead to him having to leave.

But didn't he explain the pain of staying was too much, because the wounds would never heal?

I think something missing is where he was going, and why that would be better, but I'd always thought the reason he couldn't stay was plain.

This is, of course, near valueless because it's coming from someone who's read the books a bunch of times.

For me, the symbolism of Bag End made the clues of the Green Dragon and the voiceover about the "some wounds never heal" completely clear. It wasn't just a decorating choice, the stripped interior mirrored Frodo's mental and emotional interior. Even the warm golden cheery color had changed to a bleak blue-grey. I think it's all there, but then I did read the books, long ago.

But didn't he explain the pain of staying was too much, because the wounds would never heal?

He may have, but I think that came after he said he was going. I think it would have made a little more sense if there was some exposition of "there's pain" then "the pain is too much" then "therefore, I must go," rather than "there's pain" then "I must go" then "because the pain is too much." So it was there, but, IMO, kind of awkwardly.

I think something missing is where he was going, and why that would be better,

Definitely. It took me a while to figure it out, and I don't think I totally processed it until he was actually at the boat.

Well, the folk I know who didn't read the books and saw the film all got it--including my teenage nieces and nephews and a friend who not only didn't read the books, she didn't really like the first movie o much and had to be coaxed to see the last two. I was surprised by this, as I myself thought it wasn't that clear to non-readers.

Another non-book-reader here. Don't forget that if you haven't read the books and don't know that Frodo is leaving, it packs much more of a punch (similar to that felt by Sam and Mippen) when you realise that he's going too.

I got it: it isn't really spelled out explicitely until Frodo talks to Sam, but there are lots of little clues, which obviously weren't enough for some people, though.