Originally posted by el-pirate
Big changes: In the books, Aragorn spends his life in steadfast preparation to reclaim his heritage. In the film, he's a waffler who isn't sure he wants to be king
Who he is: Corrupted wizard who abandons the side of good to align with the evil lord Sauron.Big changes: Saruman's role was inflated in "The Two Towers," making it appear as though he's the trilogy's chief foe. But he disappears entirely in "Return of the King," dismissed with the tying-up-loose-ends comment that Saruman is nothing to worry about anymore.
Long story, good summary -
Short criticism on my side.
I cannot really remember Aragorn spending his life in preparation to be king 😖 no, definitely not. Sure, he wants to be king - mostly maybe because of Elrond's word that his daughter should only marry the King of Gondor and Arnor -, but he doesnt spend his life with that, he prefers the less selfish way of supporting the free peoples of Middle-earth, he lives as a ranger in the woods, hunting orcs, fighting battles in alliance with Gondor and Rohan (cf his history as Thorongil) and so on - the same as he does in the film. He isn't really the super-ambitious king's-heir in the book, no. Not as undecisive as in the films, but I don't think the difference is really so big.
Secondly - Saruman doesn't disappear utterly, he will be on the EE where his end is explained. It's still VERY different from the books and I'm not happy with it, but he isn't totally gone.