That's interesting. I haven't read the books, so can you help with the Aragorn character traits?
Aragorn is without a doubt my favorite character, so I admit my opinion is just opinion and can be subjective to how I wish things to turn out. But, Aragorn in the novel is a bit more stubborn and cautious than portrayed in the films. He and Gandalf have brief quarrels and disagreements in the novel more than the films. It's possible Jackson and company played Aragorn's stubborness down to accentuate Gandalf's own stubborness and quick temper. Which is fine. I don't want to spoil anything of the novel, but one specific example is that Aragorn is gifted his sword much earlier on than in the films, and when arriving at Rohan, absolutely refuses to leave the weapon at the door for another man to touch (it also results in a funny quip Aragorn directs back to Gandalf that is left out of the film). There are times, even though he is reluctant to take up his destiny of king, he definitely has a pride about having that option that he doesn't appear to want others to have - should he choose not to take it. To me, that makes him more human and adds to it for me, but it's lacking from the film some IMO. But I understand and agree with a lot of the choices Jackson made for LOTR. He did make for a great viewing experience and kept the characters very contrasted to each other by doing so.
I think the films do better jobs of building the kinship both Sam and Frodo and Aragorn and Frodo have for each other than the novel does - that was always a great part of the films for me.
But LOTR doesn't disappoint for me in either media.
I wish they had included Tom Bombadil
I love LOTR - in both book and movie format, but the way Jackson ruined the Hobbit in his movie adaptation was an absolute crime.
Haha! As I was reading the book and came upon that chapter, I was completely caught off guard and had to look up what the hell Tom was in the lore of the Tolkien universe. Honestly, I can see why they left it out of the movies, and also agree with them doing so. I did see there is a fan theory that Tom is actually the Witch-king of Angmar, but I don't think it's a strong theory in the least.
I will read The Hobbit once I finish LOTR.
I'm fully with you on how bad the Hobbit films were. They may be a good trilogy to those who haven't read the book, but there were so many deviation's and differences to what I always thought of as being important parts of the book, it just spoilt it for me a bit.
Regarding Tom Bombadil, if you watch the making of featurette on the DVD/Blueray, Philips Boyens explains why they fully left him out in the films. It's basically a case of they don't say that the hobbits didn't see him, they just don't ever mention that they did! And also because they were trying to portray the ring as this evil object that corrupts anyone who holds it and Tom kind of shrugs it off. I didn't mind them not seeing Bombadil, but I was a bit upset they missed out the entire Barrow Downs part, I thought they'd include that as it was where the hobbits got their first swords, as opposed to having them randomly given by Aragorn a bit later on.
Completely makes sense to me. Novels don't work the same way visual cinema does, and I feel that's why they left Aragorn's sword broken until Return of the King
: to enhance the drama. And it works.
I enjoyed The Hobbit
movies a lot, but I'm also hearing how different they are from the novels which is sort of sad. From my understanding, Tauriel is completely fabricated to essentially create a love story, and Radagast does not have that significant a part in any of the novels?
The Barrow Downs were certainly excluded from The Fellowship of the Ring
, but I think they played a bit of homage to the old willow tree Bombadil finds them at in a scene with Treebeard in The Two Towers