The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy Improves on the Book

Even when one is fully sure of themselves, tackling something as expansive and debated as Lord of the Rings is probably on a scale of the story itself. We could likely go on for far more rounds than available, but obviously we will not. I would also like to say as a bit of an additive that I did read the book first, a few years before the films first came to the screen and in between had a passing interest in Middle-Earth lore. After the films, it expanded rapidly, but that is more subjective than the argument's basis. To begin, I will say that a scale does not automatically create tension in a story. The fact that one feels the presence of something that is not explicitly stated within a story is entirely on their own interpretation through imagination. One does not feel the presence of Morgoth in Lord of the Rings, since his role is worked out in the Silmarillion. The expansive novel itself may give the seeds for a huge world, but it does not fully explore it, and with good reason. The plot is focused well enough, yet I will say it was too focused. Going a bit out of order here, I will begin with refuting the Faramir stance first. Your argument that he would be able to resist the call of The One Ring due to his bloodline is made invalid by two points: 1. Boromir falls to the temptation of the accursed object, and that is his closest blood. Even Aragorn feels the temptation at one point, but is able to stay his hand because he is focused on the task ahead. In the movie, it is even better explained because The One Ring is his true fear because it is compounded with doubts his bloodline can ever be cleansed of the taint of Isildur's decision. 2. If such a thing were evident across all peoples of the same blood, it would completely ruin the suspense in the story. Once one might learn of the heritage of a character, there is no worry that they will not try to snatch The One Ring from Frodo because they are immune to the pull. You said yourself that tension is indeed a strong point in a story, so why would it be so much better to take away so many potential plot threads to move the story? As I stated, Faramir does indeed show as the human analogue where there is hope. It merely takes hardship, and a line of loss for him to truly realize his folly in giving in. The pull of The One Ring is also emphasized by the character of Denethor, who I will admit the changes in the movie did not suit as well as other characters, but even in the books the corruption of the Steward of Gondor would have more than likely drove Faramir to the edge of his wits. At the same time, for Faramir to tell a full truth just as many people complained Frodo did not (in the same scene, no less) makes the character uninteresting and hard to attach to. There seems to be an "above man" quality to him that cannot be related to or seen. At least with Gandalf, you know he is a force beyond mortal conjuring. That would lead me neatly into Aragorn. Aragorn's kingship may have waited in the times where men would not wish to be divided, but in a time of desperate hour a unity is often needed if only for a brief moment of force which may lead into something later on. Denethor was an ineffective leader, and there is evidence within the book that there was contention for every action he made upon the throne of Gondor. The issue with the argument is that Aragorn appears in Minas Tirith to do this in an all ready tumultuous time, and he was not going to wait for Denethor to disappear before he came in the first place. Whether or not he made a wise move, he did not seem to plan it. To the battle of Pellenor Fields itself, the Con has seemed to miss the entire point of the reforged sword. The sword in the books, even with its placement in events, did not actually mean much for the Fellowship's formation. When Elrond gives it to him and tells him to take up the mantle in the films, what's the first thing he does? Assert this new found courage and authority in himself by marching down to the Path of the Dead and call upon the Army to fulfill their deed owed from Isildur. This is much like a repeated echo throughout history, where the son must carry the burdens of the father. When truly recognized as Isildur's heir by everyone else around him, Aragorn makes his wisest decision by starting his rule by being greater than his father ever could have been. Were it not for this intervention and growth of character, Isildur's Bane would have not come full circle. Now onto Tom Bombadil. As I mentioned before, the odd spirit in himself represents a meta concept that feels so detached from the book that it's almost hard to realize that Tolkien wrote it himself. There is greatness in him and his world, but Tom Bombadil was no shining example of that. As it was, this particular chapter made the world feel like it was completely inconsistent and in no way matched up to the journeys they had prior or would have. There is no growth shown to anything with the events at this creature's house, and contribute nothing to the much desired conflict that actually makes up the tale. Lord of the Rings is supposed to be based around The War of the Ring, which all chapters further except for this one. Backstory is nice when there's not a whole chapter devoted to it. I feel that the argument that the Jackson movies over-simplified the story to a childish degree does not hold the least bit of water. There was an incredible amount of world-building and character-building going on, even if the pace was perhaps quicker than one could read the book. From a truly objective viewpoint, it followed the structure of a successful screenplay from each one of its subplots and did not skimp out on showing the scale nor the drawn out bits when it needed to. However, the former was brought out to a far better degree and the latter made incredibly exciting given the amount of time usually allotted to things in a visual medium. I will leave with a few more brief arguments on a few more differences in the films. Frodo- Specifically sending Sam away. This should be plainly obvious that it created a great deal of tension between Sam and Frodo to create a better narrative, as well as majorly reflect the "war buddy" story in a much more realistic way. Again, people learn things through adversity, and without that you merely have characters coming to mind with seemingly no prompt. The One Ring can only destroy, they say, so why does Frodo never lose his temper with Sam even once? Eomer- Eomer's role in the novel is a cavalry charger. Eomer's role in the film is to properly provide context to Rohan as well as show the power of Wormtongue, even if it is not his hand specifically at work. For such a noble sort of person, exile is much harder hitting than imprisonment, and there is no feeling of a character's nobility when they're absent until so late in the story. In addition, the Riders of Rohan seem only a military force until you realize the driving force behind them akin to Eomer. That's all I'll have for now. Again, thank you to the Con for taking up this debate, and I'm eager to see your responses.