Did your View of the Characters change after seeing the films?
 

Those who are movie fans with no knowledge from the books may not understand this, and i apologise in advance if i have posted this in the wrong place.
In the LOTR trilogy, the characters all play their roles in the destruction of the ring, and each character has different traits, there are characters we like and those we dislike, but did your view of the character change after watching the movie, did you see the character differently, and do you consider this to be a good or a bad thing.
I will not go through every character, i will only make comparisons on a few, and wait to see what other people think;

Sam in the book is loyal, caring, brave and hardly ever gives in to the thought of not returning home, in the film he is still loyal, caring, still thinks he will get home, but is overly angry and jealous of Gollum, whereas in the book he is just more suspicious, he also shows more understanding of the dangers of the ring in the book.

Boromir in the book is a soldier who cares deeply for his people, and sees the ring as a tool to help his people, in the film he just appears as a soldier who desires the ring, and is jealous that such a thing should be entrusted to a hobbit.

Faramir, in the book is completely different to Boromir, he is caring, wise and knowledgeable, in the film he is almost a carbon copy of Boromir.

Gimli, in the book is brave, and has great respect for the hobbits, in the film he is portrayed as comical.

Aragorn in the book is wise, and once he steps on the path to reclaim the crown of Gondor, and fulfil the prophecy, he has moments of doubt, which are soon overcome, in the film he appears doubtful of his path, and unsure that he is right.
These ar just a few, what do others think?

Well, not really.

But about Boromir, the movie did help to change my view on him. I read the books a year or two before the movies. When I read them, Boromir seemed like a real, plain bastard to me ( but then again, I was still in the 'oh-I-love-the-fantastic-elves-so-much!'-stage ).
Sean Beans portrayal of him changed my view forever. Why, I don't really know. I think it's the emotion that he gives to the character. I didn't just viewed him as a 'soldier who wanted the Ring', but perhaps that has to do with the knowledge that I have from the books.
When I read the books again, while waiting for TT, Boromir seemed like a different man to me. That's why humans ( with Boromir on the first place! ) are now my favourite races in ME.

I won't even start about Faramir, 'cause I wouldn't be able to stop ranting... :rolleyes:

I never really liked Sam in the movies, don't know why. Perhaps because I didn't like Frodo. But that PJ made Frodo send Sam away in ROTK!!!

I agree with you on Gimli. But remember, in TT, during the battle of Helm's Deep. That battle was so loathed with tension; I can't tell how good it was to be able to laugh, even if it was about Gimli...

About Aragorn, also: no comment... :mad:

Well, these are my two cents...

Love,

Aethelwine.

Oh yes! The movie made me think "more" about several of the characters. Before the movie, Arwen was just the sewing elf woman, left waiting.....Saruman and Boromir were just bad guys....and King Theoden was the "old" king (instead of the hottie I now visulize :) ) The depictions of Gimli, Legolas and Denethor were subtractions from my thoughts though. And, some of the best characters were, of course, missing! :eek: :( (Bombadil, Goldberry, Squinty Eyed Southerner, Imrahil, Sharkey....) I can't decide about the Nazgul...better, or worse?

This is something that I have thought about much... after seeing The Fellowship I ran straight home and reread the entire trilogy to try to erase some of the misconceptions the movie had planted. I can't say that any single character in the movie improved on my own image from some 25 years of reading The Hobbit and the entire trilogy at least once a year... no I would say the movies have ruined many characters for me. Not forever, but for a time. I thought Fellowship was visually stunning in the depiction of the shire... that was the best part of the movie in my opinion, but the characters were different from the outset. However, the more the movie progressed the less enthralled I was. I don't fault the movies. I think that those who can take them as movie versions and forget the books are commendable for their acceptance. I, however, wish I had never seen them. And now I will be compelled to watch all three in extended version once ROTK comes out, but that will be it. I don't wish to watch them over and over again, and I absolutely love reading the books over and over again.

The thing is that the world that Tolkien has created is such a personal and real thing to me, and what the movies give me is such a pale shadow. Unfortunately, now when I read I picture the actors in place of, or almost superimposed upon, the well-imagined characters I created from the books' descriptions. I remember the same thing happening in my teens when I saw a small portion of the animated version and had a heck of a time rewiring my brain to get rid of those images when I reread the book.

So I guess to answer the question of whether the movie changed my perception... oh yeah there was a question!... yes my view of some changed, and none for the better. I didn't feel any real awe or admiration for the good guys, and no real fear of the bad guys. I guess it boils down to I felt the characters were much more superficial than I felt them to be in the books, and the movies just left me feeling very lukewarm in many places. I never feel that way reading the books. Okay, I used some form of the word "feel" in the last few sentences way too many times, but there it is. :)

When I first heard they were going to make a film of LOTR, I thought what a brave man PJ was, because no matter who was cast some would complain about the casting being wrong and others would complain that the way they had imagined the characters was now contaminated. This has certainly happened, including in this discussion forum. And fair enough, everyone has their own vision.

To tell the truth, if there's any "contamination" for me, it's with the radio play rather than the film.When reading the book, I still hear Robert Stephens' voice as Aragorn and Ian Holm as a more mature Frodo than Elijah Wood, who was really too young for the role, wonderful as he was. Ian Holm's Frodo was more like the one in the novel, but he had a script that allowed him to do that.

I think the film made visual some of the things we read about in the novel, and it humanised some of the characters - Aragorn may have been less wise, but he was more human, and ditto Faramir. It's kind of hard to love a character who has no flaws and is never afraid or doubting. When Aragorn knelt to the hobbits in that scene of the film, you could believe it, perhaps even more than in the field of Cormallen scene in the novel. Arwen was not so very different, just gutsier, but all this did was make it clearer that this was a woman Aragorn could love. Gimli and Legolas both acted as comic relief in a way they didn't in the book, yes, but at least you could see they were friends and why - in the novel, they entered Lothlorien still bickering and left it as dear friends, no explanation. You knew they would be - all the film did was show it happening. So, no, my interpretation didn't change, not really. Things were just clarified for me.

And for the record, I thought the casting perfect. The actors may not all have been the way I imagined them when reading the book, but while I watched the films, I believed. They convinced me they were Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, etc.

The biggest change for me is visualisation of characters. Now, I can see them only like cast from the movie. But I don't think that's so bad, since I liked the cast in the first place (except Galadriel who is not pretty and delicate enough). Elves in background were like dragqueens, mostly (with blond hair and black eyebrows), with some exceptions. I missed Glorfindel, Eladan and Elrohir.
I liked Lothlorien, which I immagined very similar, but Edoras was disappointment (it looked like some russian village).
I can draw the strict line betwen book and movie, and they don't interfire. That helped me overlook improvisations in screenplay, and I could wach LOTR totaly openminded. And strangely, the more I read and wach, the bigger is the gap between them.

re reading lotr after fanatically watching the cartoon, films and listening to the bbc radio adaptation, my brain automatically hears the voices from these adaptations. ie usually I hear elijah and sir Ian now as frodo and gandalf, but a lot of my 'voices' come from the bbc radio adaptation, as this had a lot more dialouge taken straight from the book. I definately hear treebeard, theoden and elrond as their voices from the bbc adaptation. for some reason I hear John Hurt's cartoon Aragorn a fair bit, but then sometimes it's the radio voice, and then sometimes viggo...... but (and even though he's one of the biggest stars of the films) I never hear andy serkis's voice as gollum. I always hear Peter Woodthorpe (I think that's his name) because he played him both in the cartoon version and the radio adaptation.

the only character I think jackson got wrong was Merry. I'm not dissing Mr Monahan (even though he IS a man utd fan), as he acted superbly well, but Merry (to me) wasn't as much of a 'street wise' figure as Dom plays him. I saw him as mild and meek up until the point he finally 'comes of age' when he helps defeat the witch king. I always well up at this point of the book, but don't have the same emotion when seeing it on screen.

To start with, I can´t agree with you about Boromir beeing a bad guy. I´ve always thought of him as a victim of the evil powers of the ring and its master. He didn´t want to hurt Frodo or take the ring, but he´s just a human and couldn´t resist its powers. I pity him more than think he´s a bastard. Of course I´m not saying that you´re wrong, it´s only my opinion...

There are two characters that I´m really disappointed of in the movies: Gimli and Faramir. Gimli is like a dwarf on a cirkus, always to short, can´t ride a horse without falling of and making rude noices in front of Eowyn :mad: . Thats not how I pictured him before I saw the movies (well, I´m not picturing him like that afterwards either).

I might have the wrong impression (it´s been over a year since I last read the books), but as far as I remember, Faramir believed the hobbits quite quick, and I know that he didn´t drag them all the way to Osgiliath. He seems more proud, less friendly and helping in the movie. I don´t think Faramir is the sort of man that wants to keep the ring for himself, or his father.

Well that´s my opinion...Even if I´m not too happy with some of the characters, I think that the movies are GREAT. PJ has succeeded in making the greatest adventure ever to a real good movie-triology...Good work!!! :)

I enjoyed both the movie and the book. I believe you're right in thinking that the movie changed some things about the book, and vice versa.

When I read the book, I always pictured (now this can get weird) Aragorn more as a symbol of the letter "A", and Gandalf as a "G", and Gimli as a short "G", Legolas as "L", so forth. Kinda weird, but I never really put a face to the names, I just sort of imagine the names walking around as 3-d figures.

The movie changed that, in that it placed faces over the names, and it morphed some of the dramatic scenes for me. I don't dislike either one, but it has a strange clash.

Nice topic, by the way

i tried to read the book aged about 9 but i got scared around the Barrow Downs so i stopped.

When i heard there had been a movie made i decided that i shouldprobably read the books before seeing the film. However, before reading the books i read the short picture guide to FOTR and the first i ever knew about Aragorn was the picture of him in that book. Therefore i have never visualised Aragorn as anything but Viggo's portrayl of him, although the accent is obviously better in my head.

The film changed my vew of Pippin in that it made me like him less; PJ portrayed him as stupid and kind of the clown of the first film, which really annoyed me. i find Pippin very funny in the book, but not in that was; in a more gentle way. So it has changed my view of Pippin.

I categorically refuse to acknowledge much of the film-version of Faramir. when i watch David Wenham i hear his voice but i see book Faramir and i see the bok storyline too.

Mine didn't change. After I saw the trilogy my views of each character was the same as it was when I finished reading the books.

Oh, my, Essex, what a mishmash of voices! ;)

Peter Woodthorpe's Gollum always made me think of Fagin, so I prefer Andy Serkis's and it's him I hear, now, as I read. John Hurt was not bad at all as Aragorn, but Robert Stephens has such a beautiful voice, I am still hearing him, though Viggo was wonderful. BBC Elrond had a melodious Welsh accent, which suits Tolkien's Elves, but I think Hugo Weaving has taken over in my head. The trouble is, the dignified Elves of LOTR are so very different from the ones in THE HOBBIT, who dance around singing silly songs and talking about finishing off all the cake, you have to do an adjustment between books let alone the film!

If you want to hear yet another Treebeard, get hold of AT DAWN IN RIVENDELL and listen to Christopher Lee ... He sounds like Stephen Thorne (BBC Treebeard) but even better - and he can sing.

So now I'm hearing *him* rumbling, "Hroom hoom" when I read the book and singing to the tunes from AT DAWN...

Sorry - I know the topic was the films. But "contamination" can come from anyh interpretation.

At Dawn in Rivendell? Another adaptation to listen to. cool.

regarding Boromir.

I believe that Jackson got his character correct in a number of ways. When reading the books again after seing fotr and tt on the movie screen, I seem to have a new insight into Boromir's character when reading the books. Yes, he was a great leader of men, we can see this. But what I also now get from the books now is his almost childish nature in the way he thinks everything he says is right, and will not listen to any other arguments, no matter how well put.

Another new thing I've seen, which is staggering the amount of times I've read the book, is the animosity we can see at times between Aragorn and Boromir. I believe they really didn't get on in the books. This is also picked up by Jackson in the EE where we have Aragorn's angry retort to boromir that he wouldn't go near MT with the Ring. A number of times we can see the infighting going on between the two of them in the book.

Cheers to jackson for bringing out another 'level' to the FOTR for me.

Actually, I thought (some of) the characters in PJ's movies were more interesting than the ones Tolkien himself describes! That's got nothing to do with Tolkien being a bad writer (I love the books, have read them many times!), but a lot to do with the particular style and tradition Tolkien is writing 'on'. PJ and his co-writers probably realised that if these persons were gonna live on the screen, and have an appeal to an audience that didn't know the books - they had to make them more 'modern', and less mythological, in terms of their psychology/personality. For instance, in the books it seems reasonable enough that you have a person coming out of nowhere who's totally immune to the Ring's power - that wouldn't have worked in the movies (I'm referring to Faramir, of course :) ). I also like the Aragorn in the movies - the one in the books is rather two-dimensional.

I guess it is true that some of the other characters in some way payed a penalty for this change. Both Gimli & Legolas are to an extend 'non-characters' - comic relief yes, but not much beyond that. But if you look in the books, they aren't really much more developed there.

Excuse me...
 

Very nice topic!

Oh, and please, I beg your forgiveness for the off-topic-ness of the below, but I just had to get it out!

So, I’m a drag queen, because my hair is naturally blond, but my eyebrows are dark? Why thank you…

Oh, and mollecon, you must not forget that Tolkien wrote LOTR to be a myth, so the style he wrote in was to reflect that fact.

Forgive the off-topic-ness!

Cheers mates!

Aethelwine.

Yes, and New Line/Jackson made the films to appeal to modern film-going audiences, so the style in which they made them reflects that fact. ;)

Film is a very dominant medium, compared to the tentative nature of literary imagination. So I agree that the movie characters can easily trample on our own previous book-inspired imaginings.
One change I find slightly disturbing is my view of Merry. I can't put my finger on it, but I found film-Merry slightly seedy, somehow, and not noble enough. It annoyed me, but now he's in my mind as Merry. I want my book-Merry back!

Merry? Seedy?

Yes I know. Like I said, I can't put my finger on what it is exactly that rankles. I didn't like the way he said "My Lady", for example.

Quote:"Oh, and mollecon, you must not forget that Tolkien wrote LOTR to be a myth, so the style he wrote in was to reflect that fact."

Yes, that was largely what I was referring to when I mentioned the 'style and tradition' of Tolkiens writing :)

[QUOTE=Aethelwine
So, I’m a drag queen, because my hair is naturally blond, but my eyebrows are dark? Why thank you…
Aethelwine.[/QUOTE]


I apologize, I ment no offense, but this just didn't look natural to me, even if it is to you. Forgive me once again.

I think that there's a lot more fighting between Aragorn and Boromir in the film than the book. True, Boromir is constantly going on about how they really should head for MT and he'll go alone if he has to, but, apart from the Council of Elrond scene, in which he is very rude and Aragorn keeps his temper, they do seem to co-operate well. On the other hand, before I saw the film, I wasn't all that interested in Boromir. He was the guy who pounced on Frodo and regretted it and then paid with his life. He was dead by the beginning of TTT. On with the quest! But after the film, I had another look at the character and realised he had more depth than, say, Legolas, who didn't do a whole lot to show his personality apart from the occasional comment about his Elvish abilities, with a grin - you didn't even know what he looked like! So the film made me re-read the book with different eyes. It said, for example, that the hobbits had liked Boromir and his kindness, but you *saw* that in the film, most notably in the scene where he was teaching them how to use the sword and lay there laughing when they knocked him over. And in the extended version, in Lothlorien, where he urged Frodo not to take on more burdens, the Ring being heavy enough. Neither scene was in the book, but they made me read the scenes that were there more carefully.

Laliath, re your point about Merry I stated earlier in the post that I have issues with the Merry character. I said he was too 'street wise'. To add to this, I believe we do not see the innocence of his character in the film as we get in the books. Like you, I can't really put my finger on it, it's just not quite right.

Lobelia, re I'll try to fish out some quotes from the books to explain my point that there was a fair bit of infighting between A and B in the book, as much as in the film.

I found Pippin slightly-no-greatly more stupid & less smart than he was in the books, a victim of the comic-relief character change, obviously.

The only character in the movies that might've changed my view of one in the books would be Boromir. Sean Bean just played him so well, it really helped me figure is character out a little better (I'm sure that's been said before, but I've not the time to look through all the posts :D).

I agree with the Pippin thing. I read RotK just before I saw the movie and I really hated that he didn't get as much screen-time as I wanted him to. In the book he is shown to be very... well much smarter. And he talks more wisely and such. In the movie he's is just for laughs, but luckily he is brave.

Boromir: I really didn't think they got him right in the movie, but when I saw the extra sceens in extended edition I thought differently. He shows more understanding of Frodo's burden and what kind of person he was before he went just a little mad about the ring.

I hated the changed made to Faramir.

It has been a while since I visited this thread, and I feel compelled to clear up my last post. Not that anyone took issue with it, but from my own review of other posts I see that many are taking the question as viewing characters differently from a personality standpoint rather than a visual one. When I read the books I don't see any of "my" characters as they are in the films in their character or personality, but I am bothered by the fact I visually see actor faces competing in my mind with the faces I imagined in my many readings of the books. The characters I have come to know and love are so firmly set in my mind no movie can touch them. I am overcoming the visual problem. I can't say that anything in the movies brought me more depth than what I have read, and I have to forget the misconceptions in the film to keep my memory of what "really" happened and who these folks really are. I actually backed down in a discussion with a friend about the council of Elrond when he said a certain event really happened in the book... and it wasn't until later that I re-read and was rather embarrassed that I didn't stand up for myself when it turned out I was right!

I can appreciate the films for being what they are. I am coming to appreciate them more as I overcome my disappointment in the flaws (my own perception, and most of the things I am disappointed in have been dealt with in minute detail in other threads and there is no need of reiterating only to hear myself vent). I don't hold myself out as holier than thou as far as book v. movies, but I know (most of us know) that much more depth and breadth is to be found in the reading, and it saddens me when I talk to people who have never read the books and insist they "know" the story Tolkien wrote. They do not... they know only a movie based upon. What I have come to realize is that it is okay if people love the movies with no interest in the books. They will not know my love, and I will not know theirs. That is certainly okay.

And on the bright side... I would have never found this site if the movies hadn't spiked interest in Tolkien. Years and years ago (when the internet didn't have a billion hits for each search) there weren't many sites for Tolkien, and I hadn't looked around for a long time until the movies came out. I don't post much, but reading many of the fascinating posts of others has been a real pleasure.

Although it's completly off-topic, I just wanted to say that I'm starting to appreciate them more not necessarily because I'm getting over the flaws, but because I've put a lot of effort into defending them from baseless accusations over the last few months. After defending the films (most of the time), it's harder for me to be mad at them...

In the books, Merry and Pippin were more serious about the journey, and seemed to fight more. In the film, they are a little more comical than I thought they were in the book, and seemed weak, and a little stupid at times. Don't get me wrong I still love the two. ;)

It changed mine a lot. I imagined Gimli and Leholas a lot different, for the most part. And I always thought of Frodo as older and wiser than the other three. I had just read the books before I saw the movie, and the movie blew me away. They changed it a lot, but I still liked them. I love them now. I guess you get used to it.

Now that I think about it, the movies really have impacted my view on a few of the characters:

*Treebeard- I never could really imagine how he looked, or make sense of the description, although the movie's version of him is obviously not exactly to the book, I have a lot more to go on when I try to visualize him.

*Frodo- I imagined him as the typical hobbit, a bit less hefty because of his frequent walks that he liked to take, but still more or less the typical hobbit. I've got to admit that I like his movie look a lot better, PJ really did a good thing when he aged Frodo down to about 20 something (in the movies of course).

*Orcs- I always imagined them as these dark, hairy creatures, but you couldn't really see anything except their red eyes, very steriotypical of me :p. When I first saw them in Fellowship of the Ring I thought two things:
Oh yeah, this is definitly how Orcs should look...
-&-
This is going to be an awesome movie! :D

There are really only two characters that changed so much from the books it bugged me.
Faramir is such a jerk in TTT that I wanted to kill Peter Jackson. In the book he was so different from Borormir and so wise too. But in the movie he acted like Boromir did only wanting to take the Ring to bring honor back to Gondor.
The other character was Eowyn. I loved her in the books. She was so strong and valiant. But in the movies up until she defeats the Witch King I thought she was whiny. I think they overplayed her love for Aragorn and didn't bring out anything about how she falls in love for Faramir. But my biggest problem was just how annoying she got everytime she talked to Aragorn.

My views of the book characters did not change, as I still have them in my head, if you know what I mean. So when I read the book, I hear them as I think they should sound, not the movie characters. I see the characters as they should've looked, in my opinion. Some of them are like the movie characters, some are like the FotR game characters... though I still have trouble invisioning Old Man Willow, as I see willows... as... well... willowy.

The cartoon also never changed anything to me, though I see my orcs as similar to them, glowing red eyes... tee hee.

But the movie never really changed my outlook on the books, as there are so few scenes that match up. Sure, it corrected a few things, like hobbit holes, but I still see Lothlorien as a shining place, not dark, unless it's where Frodo looks into the mirror, which I still see as more of a lake. I see hobbits as more, well rabbity creatures.

The movie didn't change my views, not even of Faramir, though for a while I would've killed to see him as Tolkien portayed him. Although at times I will see Elrond as Agent Smith, and I still can invision Saruman with a lightsaber, saying 'join with me, Gandalf, and together we shall defeat the Sith'. But other then that, when I read the books, the characters are as I originally seen them.

Well, that's all I have to say for now.

-Eowyn Skywalker

That's how Boromir professed he'd use it to, to defend his people. They both wanted it for the same reasons really, although I'll agree that I obviously liked book Faramir better.

Kitanna, your pointI think Jackson shows how valiant and strong she was by actually showing her being terrified of the Witch King. She is absolutely scared down to her boots but will not stand down. she fends off a blow from the wk's mace exactly as in the book, and then she kills the wk with (kind of) the same lines. she stands by her king no matter what the cost. the look on her face as she backs away from the WK is amazing. she's terrified but stands her ground.

I don't actually remember her a whiny before this, though. I think we see a character who wants to fight, and is willing to disobey her king to do so.

Ah, the old Eowyn debate, we've been here before.
I'm inclined to back Kitanna on this. PJ Eowyn was not Tolkien's cold shieldmaiden - she was too soft, sweet and giggly. Psychologically, she did not seem a warrior the way 'book Eowyn' clearly was - as a result, her wish to fight appeared rather petulant and ill-judged. Is that what you saw as whiny, Kitanna?

Tolkien's Eowyn, facing the witchking, was "beyond fear" - her eyes, "grey as the sea, were hard and fell." In the book, the terrified figure who nonetheless stood his ground was Merry, not Eowyn. He was 'crawling on all fours like a dazed beast', she, meanwhile, 'did not blench.'

I don't think PJ made Eowyn that giggly, I think she only smiled once. No I like Eowyn the way she is. However I would have liked to see more development in Denethor's character because in the movie he only seems like some crazy steward who has lost his mind cause he lost Boromir. I hope there is more character development on his part in the EE.

I also think Gimli has more dignity in the book than in the movie though it doesn't bother me too much since Gimli isn't a major character for me.

(Don't mean to offend the Gimli fans)

I agree with Lathireil's comment about Gimli. Gimli was good in FOTR, I thought, but then in the later two installments, he seemed to become just an outlet for comic relief. I didn't mind this so much in ROTK as I did in TTT. I do have to commend John Rhys-Davies for his handling of the character, however. I thought his Gimli was well done, and he handled a perhaps less-than-satisfactory script very well.

I liked PJ's Eowyn... I don't think she came off as "whiny" or "giggly". I think she came off as human. To play the part of Eowyn as the cold shieldmaiden... I think it would be hard for many actresses to keep true to the book Eowyn and still seem human. A little emotion is a good thing. No one is totally cold and desperate.

About Boromir, I actually learned to like him through the FOTR movie. I didn't like him in the books: he wasn't in the spotlight so much so he just came off as arrogant and then almost evil. The movie made me really understand his motives and hopelessness about his father and his city.... and then made me love him in spite of trying to take the Ring when he gave his life in an ill-fated but very noble attempt to save Merry and Pippin. For some reason, I didn't get that out of the books. I think he is the one character that I can say that I clearly, definitely liked better in the movie.

Well Azaelia since you agreed with me I wil agree with you. I agree that I began to like Boromir more after I saw the movie than before. I also liked the part where he and Faramir are seen together because it develops his character.

I am able to enjoy both the books and the movies on their own merit. When I first heard they were making the movies, sometime in 1999, I thought "Oh no, here we go again." But when I viewed the first trailer and saw Legolas walking "on-top" of the snow in the Caradhras scenes, I knew the books were in good hands. If the filmakers were attentive to pick up that much details from the book I was confident they could make a good version.

A few words about myself
 

Essex, you have brought up a few good points about Boromir and Aragorn fighting in the books. I will say that's what I like about Boromir, he's honest and he speaks his mind. He spoke out against going into Lorien, him and Aragorn tustled for control a couple times on where to lead the party, despite all these battles between the two I believe they had developed a strong friendship. The movie has Boromir at the council of elrond spewing "Gondor needs no king, Gondor has no king" (or something to that affect). That's one thing PJ did, to Boromir, I could not agree with. From reading the books a few times and studying some of the parts of Boromir (since he is my favorite character), he never came off to me as stubborn man who wanted to keep Aragorn away from Gondor. Boromir's main concern was to save Gondor, he would do anything to save Gondor, and was content with the coming of the king and the sword to Minas Tirith. Problem is Boromir didn't think that was enough he only saw victory for Gondor if he had the ring. Which of course was Boromir's downfall, he slipped into madness, but for only a few minutes, after realizing what he had done he felt sorry, (this PJ does show well and the book talks about). What one thinks of Boromir is there own opinion, I understand completely if one would not maybe hold him in the respect that I myself do, but here is one thing that is not an opinion. The Fellowship wouldn't have survived without Boromir. Boromir carried Sam and Pippin through the snows on Caradhras, he was the strongest member of the fellowship and without his strength the fellowship would have never gotten as far as Amon Hen. Aragorn would have been the only strong person in the fellowhsip if Boromir wasn't there, and his fighting skill would have been missed, as it clearly states in the "Bridge of Khazad-dum" both Boromir and Aragorn slew many.

The punching bag,
I didn't think highly of the scenes betweent Gandalf and Denethor, they were quite dissapointing. Denethor's character was totally crapped on, and even though Gandalf did not like the steward of Gondor they both respected eachother. To me it seemed like there conversations together were more of a mockery towards eachother (if that makes sense). They would say compliments about eachother but it would be in a sarcastic way. The whole Gandalf throwing and whacking around Denethor urked me, and why does Gandalf get credit for Denethor killing himself? Gandalf and Pippin had nothing to do with Denethor killing himself, they were trying to stop him from killing Faramir. From the movies most of Gondor's characters were crapped on (Denethor, Faramir, Imrahil and Beregond weren't even there), it just seemed like Gondor had no strong leader, everyone was just a soldier that got their butts kicked by the orcs. If you watch ROTK, Sauron's army when fighting Gondor are like super warriors, just throwing and killing Gondor's soldiers like nothing, but when Rohan comes they are as dumb as rocks, they just kind of stand and let the horses run them over (if you watch closely and orc even flings himself into a riders path). But that could lead to a whole nother topic so I'll just stop there. Gondor had probably the superior armies to Rohan (Rohan's aid was needed) but no enemy entered Minas Tirith. The Witch-king breaks the gates of Minas Tirith then Rohan arrives, but I can see why PJ has them on the 5th level or whatever, people would be dissapointed in seeing 400 000 men not being able to break through the walls of Minas Tirith. That only takes away from the strength of Gondor, and in conclusion I think you see Gondor, and its Leader, Denethor, totally crapped on to show that Gondor needs a king, and to play up the role of Aragorn.