Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"?

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Trotter

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character? What about the butchering of Noble Faramir? What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf?

These bother me, with the presentation of Frodo bothering me more and more as I see it again. In the book, Frodo is shown as feeling the heavy heavy weight of the ring and its evil power, but he doesn't descend to the point of having to be urged on by Sam the way he does in the movie. Look at the scene right before they catch the coneys for lunch--Sam comes across as the only one leading him on, the only one seeing what is happening to him, while in the book, Frodo never loses sight of what he needs to do and is well aware of the evil power of the ring (this is why he is able to feel pity for Gollum, since he sees that he will descend to this in the end). And then later, he is conned in the movie by Gollum, sending Sam away. I thought a big part of the book was the essentially noble spirit of Frodo and that he was the main one who completed the quest, while in the movie, it seems like he is a basket case from the Dead Marshes on.

Faramir comes across in the end as noble, but not convincingly so. It isn't quite clear to me how the events in Osgiliath lead him to "understand" Frodo, which he could not do before. Anyway, this was a missed chance to contrast Faramir, a human with Numenorean blood and wisdom to resist the lure of the ring, with Boromir (who lacked this wisdom).

Gandalf is messed up to some extent as well, with him providing the doubting point of view in the Last Debate, which goes against everything before in which he is the prime mover against Sauron. And as bearer of the Secret Fire (the Ring), his express mission is to uplift the hearts of those against Sauron, and this scene certainly does not convey this.