[Man-of-the-Wold]

Well, I'd say that the Book also become very Men-focused. No doubt the Age of Men is at hand. But in the Books this is triumphant fate, intertwined with sadness.<P>In the Films, they have chosen to cast this as Men somehow rising above being the craven, corrupt losers that they are, while not admitting that it is their, the film-makers' invention, not Tolkien.<P>Surely, JRR Tolkien potrayed lots of flawed human characters, and laments a type of original sin in Men, but it really doesn't jive, for example, with the apparently senseless Film depiction of, say, Isildur, who in the Books is seduced by the Ring, but becomes no more a bad person than Bilbo, and in UT is shown to be wanting to do something else with it. Why not make him a mere victim of the Ring, Isildur's Bane. Book-Aragorn is proud to be Isildur's heir.<P>And then there are Galadriel's lines preceding Frodo & Sam's encounter with Faramir. Film-Faramir really goes through the same process as Book-Faramir, only it takes place with modified storyline and scenes, and without the same wonderful interlude, but O.K. Galadriel's woeful hyperbole seems quite needless, except as hype.<P>So, I think this tact by the Films, while perhaps meant to simplify things, only creates more problems, as we encounter one noble man/woman after another. The screenwriters would have done better not saying anything so definite.<P>As for Farmer Maggot being that guy, it is simply arbitrary credit listing, and it makes little sense as we see Farmer's Maggot's scythe in the air someplace where the Black Riders are supposed to have more or less newly arrived. No, I look at that guy as some hobbit well out on the far fringes of The Shire; call him what you want. Later a Black Rider hacks down a Hobbit who would be more of a warden on a main road.