2. Unecessary Tension
The Lord of the Rings was an epic tale of a small group of heroes attempt to save the world. There is betrayal, death, rebirth, monsters and great feats of strength. Pretty tense, dramatic stuff. But for some reasons, the scriptwriters felt the need to add more tension for the film adaptations. In the books, Aragornthe last heir of the Kings of Gondorwas waiting until the Ring reemerged to make his claim on the throne. In the movies, he was hesitating to return to Gondor because he wasafraid? I guess? He seemed worried he would fall to temptation. Or maybe Elrond didnt believe in him. Eventually, though, everyone changed their minds for one reason or another and Elrond brought Aragorn the reforged sword of Elendil. Likewise, in the movies, after the battle of Helms Deep, the Riders of Rohan must ride to the aid of Gondor in its battle with Mordor. But King Theoden of Rohan first indicates that he doesnt really want to go help Gondor. Things get tense, but then the beacons are lit and suddenly Theoden changes his mind and heads off. I kind of get the thought process here: adding little bits of tension to parts of the story. But does The Lord of the Rings need more tension? Why would you change this, why not just leave the story alone? And if you are going to change the story, why not make the tension a little more believable and less confusing. Why exactly was Aragorn wary of becoming King? The tension surrounding Theodens decision comes to well, Theoden didnt want to fight. But I guess seeing the beacons inspired him, or something, soyeah. I have a feeling well be asking this question after watching the third installment of The Hobbit film series