I have heard before that characters in a film simply cannot be "flat." If it's true, it's quite a good rationale for Movie Faramir (Faramir 2.0). But I have never understood why all characters in a film should have to be dynamic--it seems a little arbitrary and very limiting to filmmakers. Also, it seems to apply only to the good guys. In the LOTR films no one seems concerned that Saruman, or the Nazgul, or Sauron should change or grow, and yet they are all very good movie villains. So it has always seemed to me that heroes can be just as static, and instead of unrelenting evil they can portray steadfastness, loyalty, and unfaltering honor. These are the characteristics missing from both Movie Faramir and Movie Aragorn, who were evidently altered so that their characters could be more dynamic. But doesn't it lessen the impact of the heir to the thrones of Arnor and Gondor if he is portrayed as having "turned from that path a long time ago," and has to be coaxed into accepting his destiny ("Become who you were born to be")? It's true that static characters limit the filmmaker's ability to tell a certain kind of story that is commonly found in films (the character arc), but it is clearly possible to keep people interested in characters who don't arc (the bad guys). This shows that there is more than one way to skin a Nazgul, so to speak, and perhaps the LOTR filmmakers should have applied the same kinds of broad strokes to their heroes that they did to their villains. I think it would have added to the story (at least in the cases of Aragorn and Faramir) rather than detracted from it.
Sorry, Saucepan Man! This is exactly what you were trying to avoid, I'm sure.
