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

I feel that the Con has a misunderstanding of what sort of scale truly makes a story huge and exciting. Don't get me wrong, Tolkien's world is just that when you take it is as you are reading the story. When one gets down to the nitty gritty of it though, there are seams within the elements that make the scale more convoluted than truly a part of the story. You seem to deem all characters within The Lord of the Rings as utterly necessary to the plot in this sense, as if taking away a single element would alter the nature into the synopsis you seemed to say that the films made it. I would counter that by asking what the necessity was of Elrond's other children. They are the ones who come before Aragorn takes his tread into the Path of the Dead in the novel and bring... A flag. There are a great many other characters who were not needed to keep the integrity of a story which actually drives itself to finish, rather than awkwardly lingering to work out details which do not become important to a character. Robert Jordan can also be accused of this. As I said before with the Army of the Dead, it was the triumph of man that brought out their greatest weapon. Both sides had weapons both figurative and literal that allowed them to turn the battle in their favor when it came around. In this case, you seem to be more attacking the concept of the Army of the Dead then the use in the movies specifically. The fact that Aragorn used it to turn the tide of the battle at the only time it could have worked was the truth of his wisdom. They would not have succeeded had the events prior not happened, since Sauron's armies could have regrouped and found out a way to dispose of the wraiths properly. To the point of The One Ring, it seems like you're backpedaling over your agreement that conflict makes a proper good story. There is most certainly conflict seen when The Ring went South, with all members of their party expressing doubts about their comfort in the eve of such a power as Frodo bared. Boromir was the only one who had a specific chance to come in contact with The One Ring, and thus why you got to see the literal glimmer in his eyes and tainted mind. With Frodo and Sam as his prisoners, Faramir would have been close with the artifact at all times, and he did not have anything to distract him when there was a chance to gain it. In fact, he had the most reason to take it due to his honor that must be upheld, lest he be downtrodden. In the movies he is still able to live up as a figure we can look up to, but the character progression is actually seen instead of told. That is another thing which a great story does. Frodo and Sam's journey also intertwines with both points here. When you say that there is unconditional love, that means a story is completely predictable between characters which causes their progression to have to be explained instead of felt. The One Ring's role in the story is to bring everything towards its steady end, a symbol for the ultimate journey of our lives. What would life be like if we agreed so readily with most people, and those that we did not we bitterly and wholly disagreed? This is the characterization, or lack thereof, of good and evil. Jackson's films add dimension from things like Theoden's grudge towards Gondor, to Elrond's lost faith in humanity, and of course Frodo's fault with Sam. It was a fault, and without it Frodo is far less an understandable character. There is a fanciful lightness present in some parts of the story that do not flow well with the proceedings. Clearly some of the mentalities of The Hobbit snuck into The Lord of the Rings that overall make the story far weaker than the focused movie rendition. The pace is hindered by these grandiose ideas that amount to nothing, after a fashion. Streamlining the mindset does not mean simplifying it, and the movies certainly did not. They merely made a stronger focus around the characters which amounted to something, instead of simply introducing aspects and then having them disappear. It creates more reason, and even in a book there is more time to flesh out a character's innerworkings. You take upon the hobbit comment as if that was truly a fault of Peter Jackson. From the hobbit's inception, they were and were constantly referred to as funny creatures that existed outside the world of the "big folk". Sure, they're perhaps a bit more in your mind, but as they were presented in Tolkien's works hobbits were always meant to be little people who did not know much of strife and were very humorous. Accenting those qualities within Merry and Pippin both gave a proper analogue for an audience to understand these concepts, as well as to see their character progression. When one is first introduced to a character in any work, they are stereotyped by the viewer. It takes a good writer to dig you out of that mindset, and I feel that Merry and Pippin show far less progression from their humble roots in the book. Imagination may be heightened by a master story teller, but to me it seem you are supplanting it to fill in the holes of your argument. I try my best to stick to what is proven, at least to me, to create a better story. Tolkien I feel was a bit overzealous in some places whereas Jackson hit it right on the mark.