[Meriadoc1961]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments.

While reading through these posts it seems to me that all seem to be in agreement that visually the trilogy is a masterpiece. And since Jackson WAS so adept at capturing visually Minas Tirith, Rohan, The Shire and Bag End, The Black Gate, the Ents, Gollum, the Balrog, the Mines of Moria, Rivendell, Shelob, Lorien, etc., etc., then why the need to change the characters? That is what disturbs me when I watch the films. I like them, but I see no need for Jackson to have changed the characters at all. There was absolutely no reason for him to have done what he did with Gandalf being a bully and beating Denethor. There was no need to have Frodo tell Sam to leave. Frodo is supposed to be a very wise individual, and yet he comes across as a weak fool in many ways in the movie. The portrayal of Gimli as a buffoon was not needed at all, and in fact, I believe Tolkien would have been particularly insulted by that portrayal of the Dwarf, a member of a race he respected. Treebeard was no fool, either, and yet he has to be tricked by the hobbits in order to do the right thing. And what he did with the character of Faramir is practically unforgiveable, and absolutely pointless, not to mention how Aragorn went from being a person of high character and purpose to a man who was trying to flee from his duty. Why? How was any of this an improvement, and how was any of it necessary?