[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, I think this explanation falls into one of the four fixations bordering on obsessions of Mr. Jackson and his New Zealander friends, as I've identified. These obsessions probably arise from three sources: 1) the Screenwriters' egotistical need to put their own mark on the Films; 2) Principles of Blockbuster 101, and last but not least, 3) their own intellectually honest interpretation of the Books in terms of themes and ideas most worth using or exploring. The four fixations are in my current view, as follows:<BR>a. Dark scary characters and scenes<BR>b. Maintain dramatic tension/pace at all cost<BR>c. Men as easily corrupted, power mongers<BR>d. Extreme character development<P>The issue here of characters who start out seemingly much weaker than in the Books has most to do with d: Extreme Character Development.<P>You cannot just have someone grow a little or make modest moves on top of an otherwise noble foundation. No, they have to change 180 degrees.<P>Now, this reflects the needs of film adaptation. All you have to work with appears on scene in a short time frame. Some roles like Gimli and Legolas can be who they are with rather prosaic growth, but after nearly nine hours of footage a number of characters will need to be seen to change "dramatically" in order to resonate with the viewer. But even three films doesn't allow for much subtly, unless you want a real dialogue-oriented, deep kind of film, which doesn't foot the bill for the type of special effects that are here, indispensable.<P>Isildur, Faramir, Theoden, and Frodo all exemplify this, but lets look at Aragorn.<P>In the Books we can see how what happens in the LoTR as the crowning moment of his entire life of sacrifice and learning. In the Books he knows he wants to wed Arwen, be King and so forth. Aragorn still grows close to those around him, and acquires the sense of leadership, confidence, destiny and kingliness, about which he had doubts at first. But this is really the crystalization of elements that the Book describes, very effectively and subtly, to us about his background and the type of person he had already become up to that point.<P>The Film-makers rightly conclude that they need more contrast between early Aragorn and later Aragorn to actually demonstrate on screen. Whether they go too far is a good question, but in the Films he is a simple Ranger in Exile (whatever those terms mean?!); he reads books in Rivendell, and we assume does good deeds; he does not want to be King; is doubtful of his heritage because of Bad Isildur?!, and even has doubts about whether Arwen and he should be together.<P>All of this is well done, and it certainly has a place over the longer history of Aragorn's life as explained in the Books, not least Appendix I. The filmmakers feel they need to convey all of this in real time, or Aragorn will come off flat, uninteresting and inexplicable to the average filmgoer. Maybe they are right. At least he doesn't become a cardboard action figure. It could be worse.<P>Elrond provides another grating example. In the Books he is a very even-keeled guy, who loves and supports Aragorn and wishes the best for him and for Mankind. In the Film he is very pessimistic and disparaging of Men, but I still like the character; it's not too far off-base. What I think we'll see is that Film-Elrond comes more and more to understand that he must not give up on Middle-Earth, and otherwise, become more like the Elrond that we see in the Books, who after six thousand years is pretty much who he is, and we love him, but he'd be a bit dull, perhaps, to the non-reader.