You're viewing a single thread.
Frodo had the ring for 17 years? And he and Sam didn't age at all during that?
They are Hobbits, they don't really age all that fast.
according to Google they have a life expectancy of 100 years, so they do age a bit slower but a ~20 year difference should still be noticeable
If your only source is the movies, one of the annoying gripes about them is they have this deceptive editing that makes it seem like Frodo left the Shire within a relatively short timespan after the birthday party.
Frodo got the ring on the 22nd of September of 3001. He leaves Bag End on the 23rd of September...of 3018.
Interesting, though that still doesn't explain the aging part though. I get that Hobbits age slower than humans but if their life expectancy is only 100 years, the difference should be noticeable right?
Sam aged, Frodo did not. I recall several mentions throughout the books that Frodo was considered unusually young-looking for a 50-year old hobbit, just as Bilbo himself was very young-looking for 111. Owning the ring seems to basically just pause your aging, even if you're not using it.
Sam was also twelve years younger than Frodo, but since Frodo stopped aging for 17 years, he wound up effectively older, physically speaking.
Not pause, but slow. That's why Gollum looked like shit, but still good for being 500 years old!
When 500 years old you reach, look as good you will not hmm?
he wasn't actively wearing/using the ring while in the shire iirc
Someone should edit the movie to have a transparency of a calendar having its pages blown in the wind until it lands on 3018.
Yes, I have always from the first time I saw the movies thought that's what they needed. A five second clip of that and nothing else about the movie has to change!
Hear me out, SpongeBob style voice over with "17 years later"