[Sam Cree]

Well, Tolkien considered LOTR to be one book only, dividing it in three and making it a "trilogy" was really an artificial construct of the publisher.

So, I guess I have been thinking of the movies the same way, not as 3 movies, but as 3 sections of just one. Agreed that there is no "leading" character or protagonist, but I don't have too much trouble figuring out that an ordinary hobbit, Frodo, is easily more of a central character than the rest of the heros, important and wonderful though they be.

I guess it makes sense, in a way, that the fellow who comes closest to a Hollywood style "leading man" is a commie.

[BradyLS]

Agreed that there is no "leading" character or protagonist, but I don't have too much trouble figuring out that an ordinary hobbit, Frodo, is easily more of a central character than the rest of the heros, important and wonderful though they be.

Filmmakers gravitate to the action hero. Aragorn is very much the conventional hero and ideally suited for the films. Making the story of Frodo's journey as readily engaging and still staying true to the story would be no easy task for any director

I don't agree with most things that Roger Ebert has to say about films, but I honestly think he was truer than most reviewers when assessing the The Two Towers. He noted that the story had shifted decisively in favor of Aragorn's portion of the tale. And with the Return of the King, we already know who get the lion's share of screen time in that movie.

I think the story was at its best in the Fellowship. The action will probably be at its zenith in Return. I hope, in the end, I feel that the story of Frodo and Sam will be equal in memory to the story of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli.