I was disappointed he was not in the films, however everyone else I know was glad of this omission. I think his character adds a certain something- maybe something a lot of people don't appreciate. Not including him in the movies, I thought, was a missed opportunity.
I’m disappointed too, but my least favorite thing about the movies is how they made Aragorn so different. He was supposed to be kingly right from the start, taking Anduril from Rivendell and repeatedly shocking the hobbits with his kingliness. The movies made him this reluctant guy who doesn’t want to be king — where in the book he knows it’s his destiny and it makes him a total badass.
Also the fight scenes in the Fellowship.. they haven’t aged great for me. An elf, two men, and a dwarf can kill a hundred orcs? The battles in the book are awesome, but less of a one sided bloodbath. Aragorn cutting off a goblin’s head, which causes them to get freaked the fuck out and retreat. That’s way more believable than that these guys are super warriors who can take down an army when outnumbered 100:1.
I think that I really would have enjoyed the characterization discussed in the linked article, of Bombadil as the dark hand of Mirkwood, provider of the blade that would slay the witchking.
A lot of people likely would have despised such a characterization.
