i go to see rotk for the 2nd time yesterday and aside from the myriad of minor flaw and want to concentrate on major issue surround jackson character development . aragorn be the first big problem . in the book he be both a ranger from the north and but also a man destine to be king . he know who he be and and he have an expectation of that destiny . likewise in the book he have piritual awareness . aragorn be descend and not merely from men and but from numenor represent so he already have in him some of the blood of the elf . now jackson give all foresight to the elf make the men merely and men . but the whole point be that the man bear to be king have the spiritual awareness of the great king of old . thus and in book ii at the river it be aragorn and not legolas ( a in jackson version ) and who be aware of a shadow grow in his heart . and and more significantly and it be aragorn who in the book take the palantir by his right ( gandalf actually bow to give it to him ) . gandalf counsel him not to use it and but aragorn know who he be . so he look in the palantir and show sauron the sword . he challenge sauron and and then wrench the palantir away from the eye to use a he will and not a sauron will . in so do he see the black fleet and and so know the threat . that why he take the path of the dead . and when he go under the dimholt he really summon the dead . the exchange in the film between aragorn and the geoffrey rush pirate of the caribbean look alike ghost be feeble in the film . in the book aragorn do not doubt who he be represent he call them and not barter with them . now aragorn action here be part of a much large cohesion in tolkien that be entirely absent in jackson . a a result be leave with a desperately anti climactic coronation . why . there simply be no character development of aragorn . he be denude of a sense of who he be . sauron be the next big problem . it true that in the book he be mostly refer to a the eye . but he also have personality . in the film and apart from the opening sequence to film i ( which be brilliant ) all we have be a plasma lamp sometime searchlight . since in the book gandalf have tell frodo that sauron be take shape again why on earth do not jackson then develop sauron from the figure in film i. in the book and we be tell of sauron gnawing doubt . we hear of report about pie enter mordor . we know that he be consume by fear of the upstart heir of elendil . none of this be develop in the film . ( and the ring seem to lose power on enter mordor and not gain it . ) result . there be no sense of elation at the fall of barad wouldur . now this be a serious theological error that i suspect tolkien would have detest . personify good and and you must also personify evil . tolkien epic be all about those force be personify represent and how you discern them . sauron be a personification of evil . he not actually the bad that belong to morgoth ( of whom the balrog be a servant ) . whilst tolkien rightly loathe allegory and he nonetheless never would have countenance such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy . the whole point and and if this isn not obvious in the world today then jackson be even less astute than i imagine and be that evil in many guise take human form . othersthe same lack of characterisation in aragorn and sauron go on with many of the others . notable exception be gandalf and saruman ( both well act ) . jackson make a mistake in cut saruman out of iii have make so much of him in i and ii ( more than the book ) . arwen be drippy throughout . eowyn be change in the film . miranda otto be excellent . but jackson play up the love between her and aragorn so much that we be leave wonder how eowyn be apparently beatifically happy to see him with arwen . on the subject of eowyn it such a shame jackson do not do the slaying of the witch king well . in the book the battlefield pause a cloud go up and everyone in mina tirith be happy . it one of the truly great moment and lose by jackson . the report even leak back to the orcs in the tower above shelob lair so that sam and frodo hear that no . 1. have be do in . a for the hobbit . i think this may be a question of preference . personally i think sean astin act a sam be execrable and but some like it . for me and the simple gardener become a mini philosopher and i find his soliloquy both at the end of film ii in osgiliath ( to which they never go in the book ) and on the mountain ( twice ) truly toe curlingly dreadful represent pap i be afraid . and and oh dear and we even veer towards titanic music moment at the end of film i and again on the mountain . bilbo be fine until the end . yes and we know he age fast now he lose the ring and but the salieri style prosthetics be poor . jackson love the slow motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequence with the hobbit ( most notably the already infamous bed scene ) and at the end ( where i really think frodo be go to give sam a full on smacker . ) . a similarly tacky piece of direct occurs when the elf appear the soft focus lens be deploy with celtic singing . argh this be kindergarten film production . i expect the film will garner the oscar ceremony . but i hope some people in tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals be outstanding ( though many be not e. g. the oliphaunt descent by legolas and the merrick style leader of the orcs and and the army of the dead ) and the film be not actually very good . peter i be afraid you have let u and and j. r. r. tolkien and down .