Aragorn: Why doesn't he want to be king? Because men are idiots.
I didn't really love this change. By the time of the War of the Ring, Aragorn has been working towards becoming king some day for how long? Sixty years or so? Can't recall, but a damn long time. He fought for the
parents of some of the 'idiots', as a ranger and as a general. Shoehorning this 'arc' onto the story of a singleminded, experienced eighty-three-year-old leader rankled a fair bit for me.
Frodo - This is basically how he's written, save he wasn't nearly as useless in the book.
He does toughen up a fair bit. He's a kid in FOTR, a man by the end of ROTK, and a sacrifice, in fact.
Gandalf* - Hmm, except when he becomes Gandalf the WHITE?! And prior to that battles A BALROG? Significant changes in character here.
He in fact dies, returns to Valinor, and is sent back as a new being; a change so profound that he is actually mistaken for Saruman at first, in both book and film. Gandalf the Grey is a bit of a ditherer. Gandalf the White is a warrior and leader. Admittedly this isn't capitalised on as much as it could be; IMO that's a problem in both versions. The Witch-King jilts him and he never really gets to show off how much more badass he is. :lol
Someone from the Valar who knows everyone, sees everything, and has everyone fooled.
Saruman is a Maiar himself, not a Valar. He is sent by the Valar, I guess.
In Twin Towers you never once get the honest feeling like he may leave his love for a human. That should be a tortured soul who doesn't know what his path should be. In the film we just get a pretty generic "reluctant hero".
Agree. Artifact of the grafted-on arc, IMO.
However in the films we only ever get that impression when the ring is on which is rare. There's no feeling in the film of a constant menace or watchful eye. The tie between this creature that's pulling the strings and what actually happens is poor in the film.
Disagree. It could perhaps be better, but it's there. The whispering of the ring is not a bad device at all, IMO.
"In the end do you care about the characters based on ONLY the films?"
Honestly couldn't tell you, for mine. I give Jackson great credit for making the unfilmable filmable. I went in worrying about issues of faithfulness - too much on things like Bombadil or the poems would have equaled death as surely as too little on the grand themes; and on performances - how could some of the clunkier, more theatrical lines be delivered with straight faces? If you've listened to the radio play you know exactly what I mean. Forth, the three hunters!!!!
I really just wanted to get through it without cringing with embarrassment.
But I came out bursting with all sorts of great big good feelings. Didn't expect that, so I think Jackson must have got it about right.
