[Neurion]

In refernce to Radaghastly's post, I just want to say that a good example of how I dislike some of the divergences from Tolkien's original story is in the portrayal of Isildur.

In Unfinished Tales, it's quite obvious that the Ring has (as of yet) exerted no corrupting influence over Isildur, besides simply motivating him to keep it, and, in fact, when he dies he is marching back to take up the rule of Arnor after spending several years instructing his nephew Meneldur in the ways of ruling wisely. Not the behaviour characteristic of a power-hungry tyrant, IMO.

When the battle between his bodyguard and the orcs runs ill he does not simply run off, but is urged by his son to try and escape to Imladris, at which point, Isildur comments that he now understands why the elves wanted the Ring destroyed.

Jackson, Boyens and Walsh do not seem to understand the character at all. It might be argued that it was neccessary to reduce Isildur's filmic personna to such simplistic dimensions because of time constraints, but Jackson's seemingly-humorous comment that they got Harry Sinclair to play Isildur because he was the most corrupt actor they could think of would seem to speak against such a conclusion.

In the the conceptual Prologue in the EE appendices, Isildur's response to Elrond's demand that he destroy the Ring is a confused "Why?", much more in keeping with the character's personality and motivations in the book. In the film though, he simply sneers "No", and then is next seen riding through a forest, looking as though he's heading off to finish up where Ar-Pharazon left off.

All in all, a rather dismaying portrayal one of the noblest of the old Numenoreans.