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

I will begin by addressing Pro's points.It is true that scale doesn't automatically create tension in a story, but I can show that some scale is essential with a simple thought experiment. Let's take the Lord of the Rings as written by Tolkein, and compare it to a version that has drastically reduced scale:"There was a short guy named Frodo. He had an evil ring, took it to a volcano, and the ring fell into the lava, destroyed forever. The end."It is clear that for a story to have the plot, character development, and 'life' that makes a great tale, there must be at least some sense of scale. The more simplified a story becomes, the more it risks falling into the category of our thought-experiment.Faramir1 - Pro mis-represents my position. I didn't say Faramir was immune to the ring. I simply pointed out the problem that one of the most honorable men(Numenorean men) would almost instantly succumb to the Ring. This is not the message of the story, it is a story about thriving in spite of difficulty. It is a story about overcoming trials and temptations. When a man like Faramir instantly succumbs to the Ring, it creates a rift between the message of the story and the reality of human nature. If Faramir fell victim to the Ring after a few hours, why was Boromir able to resist for so long? The strength is contradictory to itself in the movies.2 - Again, I never said Faramir was immune to the Ring. Only that the Ring doesn't instantaneously overcome strong-willed men. Beside, this plot thread wasn't taken away in the book. The movie rendition moved the timing of Faramir's struggle, and made him weaker in spite of it. The 'above-man' quality to Faramir is misunderstood. Faramir represents what is good in human nature. He is a man who has been through much strife, has strong character and wisdom, and has learned that self is not the most important concept. Faramir, in the books, serves as a role-model, the kind of man children aspire to become.Aragorn - Aragorn had been working with Gandalf for 53 years by the time we come to the Fellowship of the Ring.[1] This is an example of why Tolkein's world feels so alive. If we know everything that is happening in a fictional world, there is less connection to our own world. We find that Aragorn is troubled, but a wise man, and he is following a purpose. At the time of the Fellowship of the Ring, Aragorn's sole purpose is to help destroy the Ring. Pro still assumes it would make more sense for Aragorn to have taken the throne instead, even though he and Gandalf both knew there was no true hope without destroying the Ring.Yes, Aragorn did march down the Path of the Dead, I simply showed where the movie diverged. In the books, the dead spread fear among the Corsairs at an earlier time, but the true message is how Aragorn helps unite men(by getting men from South Gondor to come to Minas Tirith's aid). The movie took away the victory of men and gave it to invincible spirits. There is much less connection to the human condition when a supernatural force saves men in the movie, than when men save themselves in the book.Tom Bombadil - As I said, the books show greater character growth. The hobbits were bright-eyed and naive when they set out. The Old Forest and Barrow-Downs were minor events compared to what was to come, but small trials prepare us for greater trials. There is a tremendous amount of character growth that happens here, as well as 3 of the hobbits being given the weapons they will carry throughout the rest of the story. The Lord of the Rings isn't just about the Ring, it is about overcoming adversity. There is no single adversity in our lives, and there was no single adversity that the fellowship faced.Frodo sending Sam away - This was a horrible thing to do. The message between the friendship of Frodo and Sam is that there are true friends who will always be there for you. There are bounds between friends and family that cannot be broken. Frodo and Sam were true to each other through everything, and throwing in this bit about Frodo not trusting Sam anymore diminishes completely the strength of their friendship, and the meaning of them facing the trials together. Tolkein believed in unconditional love, but this was diminished in the movie.There are truly many, many differences between the two versions, and we could spend years debating, but I can sum up why the books are better than the movie renditions, before I present a few more examples.Tolkein invented a world, languages, peoples, cultures, history, etc... He wasn't constrained by time or budget to make the story as good as it could be. The movies were under time constraints and budget constraints. So many details simply couldn't be included in a three hour movie. Character development, intersecting plot lines, and back-stories had to be cut out for no reason other than there wasn't enough time.Hobbits - In the movie, the hobbits are initially 'dumbed down', to allow for more character growth due to time constraints. Merry and Pippin become comedic relief in the movies, and many instances of valor are left out or changed to moments of fear. One instance of this is on Weathertop. In the book, Frodo strikes out with Sting at the Riders, but in the movie, he cowers in fear. The movie rendition of Frodo in particular contradicts itself between courage and cowardice. Another example is the lake at the gate of Moria. In the book, Boromir throws a stone in the lake. In the movie, it is Pippin, to continue the 'dumb and dumber' feel given to Pippen and Merry.The movies are great entertainment, but they are in no way comparable to the epic tale contained in the books. The Lord of the Rings books are one of the few fictional worlds where I feel a sense of awe every time I read it. Pro made a comment about imagination, but fails to understand that a writer's job is to stimulate the imagination of his readers. Tolkein successfully did this.[1]http://lotr.wikia.com...