I think I am beginning to understand LOTR the movie

I'm not an authority on this by any means--this is just a theory. But it seems to me that the director got fixated on plot. This is what a good director should do if they want to tell a story *and* make money. I don't think he hacked the plot in order to save money on actors. I think he decided that _no_ actor could adequately portray the depth of Theoden (a secondary character) and Faramir (also a secondary character) in the sum-total of five minutes screen time alloted to them. Doing so would haven taken more film, which would have detracted from the primary characters and plot. In other words, plot* drove character which drove the "look" which drove the budget, not the other way around.

But that's just a theory.

* by "plot" here I mean specifically the drive among big-screen directors to keep the story simple and focus on primary characters. This is such a truism in Hollywood (and imitators of Hollywood) that it's often not discussed, and so is overlooked by people outside that subculture.

I think you're right and you're wrong. Yes, they've severely cut what they could have shot, but IMO they've largely cut what they did not need to shoot. If you wanted an exact retelling of the original you'd need at least another two movies-worth. Given that movies are now shown - at least in the UK - without an intermission, the maximum length of a film is now determined by the bladder, not the director. Fortunately, TTT has an inbuilt bladder-break for those with a Clue.

Further, they may have chosen B-list (to Americans) actors, but to Brits and others outside the US, many actors are A-list (Sean Bean being a primary example for Brits). I will agree that Sean Bean would have been better cast as someone who survives all three films - perhaps as Aragorn himself.

Also, B-list actors they may be, but remember that all A-list actors were B-list at one time, and there have been some A-list performances, and I'll cite Gollum/Serkis and Boromir/Bean.

Yes there's a budget, but is that a bad thing? Do we really want to see the same old faces giving the same old (though excellent) performances? Or do we wat to let the movie companies make a profit and give up-and-coming actos and character actors an opportunity? Be fair: if they weren't good, they wouldn't have got the job in the first place.

With specific regards to Theoden, Sean Connery would have been perfect for the role, but he could not have been reduced to a cameo, and would have stolen the show anyway.

Welcome to IWETHEY!