The Lord of the Rings is a masterful epic, whether you're talking about the books or the movies. But there was a reason J.R.R. Tolkien was against a film adaptation. And it's true that Peter Jackson had to make changes to the tale and the characters to better fit a visual medium. The question is: did it pay off?
The answer is: not always. Sometimes, the characters are better the way Tolkien wrote them. Now, before you come at me with the entire Morgul-host, know that I am a huge fan of both the movies and the books. I think that the actors did a phenomenal job in bringing these characters to life. This list merely covers the actual characterization differences between films and books, and my personal opinions. With that said, here are eight characters that were better in the books.
Pippin
When first introduced to The Lord of the Rings as a teenager, Pippin was my favorite of the hobbits. I don't even know exactly why, but seeing him come into his own by the end of The Return of the King filled me with a sense of vicarious pride. And while I can't imagine anyone but Billy Boyd playing him, I feel like Pippin got shortchanged in the adaptation to the screen.
Pippin in the films is kind of an idiot. He's clueless and just along for the ride, but there to provide comic relief. But, Pippin in the books is intelligent and quick. He is the youngest of the hobbits, and so is naive and innocent to the ways of the world. The foolish mistakes he makes are not because he's a fool by nature, but just because of the foibles of youth. And he matures and grows into an adult hobbit throughout the novels in a deeper, more meaningful way than is shown in the films.
Gimli
Another character used as comic relief in the films is Gimli. Honestly, if all dwarves were treated as unseriously as Gimli was, I can fully understand their mistrust of other races. It would be exhausting trying to get people to stop making short jokes and smirking whenever I tried regaling the proud tales of my people!
While Gimli in the films, portrayed by John Rhys-Davies, comes off as a jokester and often full of bluster, the Gimli in the books is more in line with a chivalrous knight. He is a formidable warrior and has a burning desire to see evil destroyed. He is extremely loyal, and his strength of character earns him passage to the Grey Havens. There's much more to him than his movie counterpart, needing to be tossed or struggling to keep up.
Gollum
When it comes to Gollum, I'm much more in line with Sam's way of thinking than Frodo's. That is, Gollum is evil. While at one point in time, he might have been redeemed, it is far past that point. I understand Frodo's need to find the good in Gollum so that he still has hope for himself, but it doesn't make sense if the ring is truly as powerful in its corruption as it is.
The Gollum of the books has been corrupted by the ring, completely and utterly twisted. Frodo may see a glimpse of what Gollum once was, but that person is long gone. He is a terrifying living oracle of what the ring's power will do to a soul. Gollum in the movies is a pitiable creature, with his other self, Smeagol, often coming out and playing the conscience. Up until the very end, the movies plant the idea that Gollum can be redeemed, which weakens his power as a villain.
Faramir
Of all the characters on this list, I think that Faramir's character changes were the worst. David Wenham was still able to portray his character as a man of honor, but Faramir's traits in the movies just feel weaker. I understand that the change was made to show the tempting power of the One Ring, but it puts a dent in Faramir's armor that shouldn't be there.
In the books, Faramir is only tempted by the ring for a moment before recognizing the importance of Frodo's quest. He is kind and helpful to Frodo, and stands in stark contrast to his brother, Boromir, whose greed allows him to fall prey to the ring's evil influence.
The Faramir of the films seems more similar to his brother when he takes Frodo and Sam hostage, determined to bring the ring to Gondor. It's only when they are attacked by the Nazgul that he changes his mind and lets Frodo go. So, book Faramir has more integrity and heart than the film version.
Denethor
If you only know Denethor from The Return of the King film, then you might be pretty upset with Aragorn leaving this incompetent steward to rule Gondor. The man really is useless, unless you want to know how not to eat tomatoes or how to make sure you end your family line and bring ruin to your people. However, Denethor from the books is a capable and strong leader.
Denethor in the books prepares for Sauron's attack, and he is the one to order the beacons lit. He's said to be the most king-like steward Gondor has had. And his corruption and fall are not just him going crazy with grief. He has been influenced by Sauron through one of the palantÃri, or seeing-stones. The book Denethor is a tragic tale of succumbing to the darkness rather than losing his mind and lashing out impulsively.
Celeborn
Have you seen the meme that says, "If you ever feel useless, just remember that Galadriel had a husband"? Yep, that's Celeborn. Relegated to just Galadriel's husband, he only has one line in the theatrical release of the films, and he's even just presumed dead in Amazon Prime Video's Rings of Power. I understand time constraints for the movies, but why leave out such a powerful love story when you're telling Galadriel's tale?
In the books, Celeborn is one of the wisest of the elves and a great warrior from the First and Second Ages. He is willing to help the fellowship however he can, guiding them about which paths to take and providing them with their boats. Even if it is to emphasize Galadriel's power, it's unfortunate that we never really get to see what a power couple Celeborn and Galadriel really are.
Beorn
Many people were unhappy with The Hobbit films for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest complaints was with Beorn. Beorn was a skin-changer, or shapeshifter, who could turn into a black bear. He aids the dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo, and appears again during the Battle of the Five Armies. But if you were hoping to see his climactic battle where he kills Bolg, you'll be disappointed.
In the books, Beorn is grumpy but jovial. He isn't fond of dwarves but isn't as overtly hostile as he is in the film. He is actually quite generous in his aid of the dwarves when he learns of their quest. He also fights valiantly and defeats Bolg, the leader of the Northern Orcs, when trying to save Thorin. Again, the time constraints could explain some of the changes, but with one book being stretched into three films, Beorn could have had better representation and not lost his victory to Legolas.
Thorin
Don't get me wrong: Richard Armitage in all his broody glory makes a great Thorin. The parts of his character that I struggle with are closer to the end of the story. In the books, during The Battle of the Five Armies, Thorin overcomes his greed and dragon sickness to rise up and unite elves, dwarves, and men against their enemies. He becomes a true leader and dies heroically.
The Thorin of the movies has no such change. Yes, he is remorseful as he lies dying, but it just isn't the same. He was selfish and did not think of his people until it was far too late. The ending of the films leaves me hollow, questioning, "What was all of this for?" Thorin in the books also dies, but there is a greater purpose than regret to end his story.
So, while both books and movies are masterpieces in their own right, some of the Lord of the Rings characters could have done better by sticking closer to Tolkien's imagining of them.