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

As said above, this is debate is of the argument that the Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy directly by Peter Jackson is an improvement upon the source material for the movie Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. I ask first, what is it that makes a story exciting and memorable? Though many may take their own stances on this, I would say that properly placed conflict is indeed the heart of any story. Without conflict and the need to resolve it, a story does not exist. At the core of every tale there is adversity, movement, and a passion to tell the tale. Great tales also create growth and depth to suck the reader in and make them care about every event in a story. I feel this is where Peter Jackson and his team succeeded with Lord of the Rings where J. R. R. Tolkien could not. Most people that are very engrossed in the literature of Middle-Earth seem to come to an agreement that the world and its lore are the best part of the story. The races, mighty and small, are the centerpiece which the story revolves around. Even the Silmarillion is loved by Tolkien fans because it is dedicated solely to working out the backstory of Middle-Earth. What is left in the remainder though? There are characters, plot, and events within the story. I will take one of each of these that the movies changed radically from the book and attempt to explain why they did for the better. Aragorn (Character)- I decided to go with Aragorn first since he is the character most deeply tied with the plot, and probably even more debated than a character I may bring up later. Aragorn within the novel is rightful King of Gondor and very strong hearted. All his actions seem to be predicated on the love for his homeland and the spirit he grew from his years as a ranger. Aragorn within the movies is a solace and thoughtful figure, but containing the element of the much maligned "self-doubt". It is due to this new character trait that he does not take up the blade of his ancestor and why he does not choose to regain his crown at the first opportunity. This is the conflict which brings the character of Aragorn to a much closer understanding by the audience. Within the book, Aragorn takes his birthright but does not take his birthright. He takes the sword, which is useful to him for a present time, yet will not step forward to rally the men of Gondor for seemingly no reason at all. During this time, his kingdom is ravaged, his people slain, and the world of men disrupted merely due to his seemingly trivial waiting. At no point in the novel does his ascension seem symbolic or change much of anything until he taunts Sauron within the Palantir which is far later. In the films, the forging of the sword and Elrond's appearance means a lot to the viewer because of the journeys all the characters had to do to get to that point are very evident. Aragorn successfully uses his sway and really grows as a character to muster the final confrontation at the Black Gate, where he truly uses the sword for the first time to fight back the forces of evil. That is the true progression of Aragorn's character that should be much more noticeable, especially within such a lengthy text, that never got there for the sake of dramatic effect. The changes to Aragorn's character made his person better. The One Ring (Plot)- The driving force of the plot in both books is the One Ring. We are shown from the first chapter that the ring is powerful enough to corrupt Gandalf, the most powerful creature we have yet seen in the book or its predecessor The Hobbit. We know there is mighty sway over the minds of all from The One Ring... Then Tom Bombadil shows up. I will not argue about the complete destroying of pace this chapter does to book, because it should be self evident. The tone is completely abolished in order for Tolkien to inject some sort of environmental message coupled with the "crazy adventures of the hobbits down in this divergence from any plot!". I mainly bring up this point because the idea that The One Ring is supposed to be all-powerful should not just have some random exceptions. The biggest one of these is Faramir, which I will explain in more detail below. It simply makes no sense that people are simply unaffected by the most powerful object on the planet merely to create a contrast. That dissolves the all important conflict and tension, and in Bombadil's case derails any sense of the powers at work. It also confuses a viewer, since one is supposed to feel "the eye of Sauron" even when he is not a giant flaming eyeball atop Barad-ur. The absence of the villain's presence makes them feel far less effective , and in turn lowers the tension for the rest of the piece. Osilgath (Events)- This is technically tied in with Faramir, but it's one radical alteration to the story of the films that needs to be addressed due to its importance. The Two Towers film take a route which many fans of the book call a completely unacceptable turn in having the character of Faramir be overcome by the desire to use The One Ring and attempt to derail Frodo and Sam to Minas Tirith to present it before his father. In the novel, Faramir does not delay Frodo and Sam after questioning them once they are able to tell him a bit about his brother, Boromir. He is not at all concerned about them after that point, and later ends up by the War's end back at home with a father burned alive. The film's depiction was stated to have occurred for two reasons by Jackson and his team: 1. They needed a climax for Frodo and Sam's story within The Two Towers. 2. Faramir's rejection of The One Ring's temptation made the power of Sauron seem ineffective. As stated above, the second point is the major issue that made the book less coherent. The reason this change is not only acceptable but an improvement on the original text is because it shows consistency as well as character progression through adversity. Boromir died, and Faramir grieves over that in both versions, but it does not seem to properly affect him in any meaningful way in the novel. Going by the movie though, Sam's admittance to Faramir about Boromir's downfall caused by The One Ring strikes hard at his heart and makes him realizes the sacrifices that must be made for the survival of men. As for the structure to Osiligath specifically to create a climax? It again was there to represent the reach of Sauron's grasp and bookend the other stories that were going on around the same time. Skipping to Shelob would give the Mordor story even less to accomplish in the final movie, and thus Sam and Frodo's adventure would seem almost peripheral. Not to mention the timelines... Well, there's a start of my argument as to why the Motion Picture Trilogy adaptation of Lord of the Rings excels and succeeds where the book did not. Overall the story and characters are far stronger, and the world remains intact whilst also creating something unique for people to relish for years to come.