Sauron isn’t vindicated by the brokenness of men and elves, far from it, and the doom of the ring couldn’t have been farther from an accident. There are many pieces to the puzzle. Yes, power plays its part, but it simply isn’t enough. Power wielded by man is never enough. The same goes for wizards and elvish queens as Gandalf and Galadriel clearly indicate!

So what bridges the gap? A long string of seemingly inexplicable mercies sets up the final conflict. Bilbo spares Gollum in the tunnel beneath the Misty Mountains. Aragorn spares him in the wilds after he and Gandalf have captured the wretch for interrogation. The wood elves spare him once again during his incarceration in their dungeons. Finally, Frodo spares the imp time and again as he begins to see his own fate reflected in Gollum’s degradation.

One must ask how ancient elves, war-hardened men and naive hobbits all were moved to the same mercy when exposed to such a disgusting, clearly vile and evil creature? What or, more to the point, who allowed them to see Gollum’s faded humanity and pity him?

With my more deeply developed perspective I can understand Christopher Tolkien’s distress. He knew his father bemoaned the loss of an English culture which had all but died with the introduction of the age of mechanization, as seen in WW I, but also in English (western) culture at large. Both Tom Bombadil (who was excised totally from the movie) and the hobbits of the Shire represented a way of life which Tolkien knew was almost gone forever (and by now is totally extinct). There is something terribly dreadful to mourn in this.

The commercialization he saw then (hardly as crass as it has emerged since, yet evil enough to Tolkien) was another element which was and remains central to the replacement culture Tolkien quickly abhorred for its sterility and lack of virtue.

As I said, I recognize the difficulties Jackson had in remaining more true to Tolkien’s sensibilities. Having said that, the truth is that there were many elements intrinsic to the books which failed to make it into the films that would have better represented the depth and richness of Tolkien’s masterwork. I’d like to provide examples, as someone asked, but even more so I’d like to address a lot of the simply mistaken – or at least short-sighted – perspectives expressed by others here who still may be rooted in LOTR as a terrific action/adventure movie – which it is for those who haven’t yet discovered what lies beneath.

However, that would take an even longer comment than I’m writing now. Besides, I don’t want to deprive you guys of the joy of learning a lot more about what Tolkien was up to throughout the books, which deserve several re-readings. Instead, I strongly recommend that…

1. The fact that the “wise” (i.e., Saruman, Sauron, Denethor) do not recognize power (salvation) in the humble (the Hobbits).

I don’t recall any point in the movies in which Saruman, Sauron, or Denethor said, “Look out, make way — here come those big, bad hobbits!”

2. Gandalf’s “resurrection” as “Gandalf the White”

Uh … yeah, that’s in the movies: “death,” “resurrection,” wardrobe change.

3. “Lembas” or “waybread” is an allusion to the Eucharist (so Tolkien tells us in his letters – “waybread” was an old English name for the Eucharist).

Don’t recall the word “Lembas” of “waybread” in the movies. I scarcely recall them from the books. Honestly, if you cite Tolkien’s letters for the proposition that lembas refers to the Eucharist, that suggests that this idea isn’t really well conveyed in the books.

6. Perhaps most importantly, evil and its great power are overcome not by more power but by self-sacrifice and love…. Sauron is mostly undone by his own blindness, assuming that his opponents would choose using his Ring against him and not destroying it….

Most of this is in the films.

And the part that isn’t — is nonsense. Yes, love/self-sacrifice play a role – but so does power!

Sauron loses the One Ring — because he’s confronted by power. Frodo and Sam survive their journey — by holding Gollum at swordpoint. They sneak into Mt. Doom — because Sauron is distracted by an invading army.

And ultimately Sauron is vindicated: No one voluntarily casts the ring into Mt. Doom. Rather, Frodo decides to keep it; Gollum takes it by force, then falls in by accident.

Jackson made up for some of this by including new scenes and dialog or by reemphasizing native dialog by moving it. Here I am especially thinking of the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in Moria. Too often, the immediate effect of the tinkering is to highlight the heroism of a particular character (e.g., Sam’s speeches to Faramir in Osgiliath and to Frodo on the slops of Orodruin). But not always. For instance, I think the expansion of the battle at Helm’s Deep was well done and allowed a deeper exploration of the themes of despair and trusting to Hope. And how can one not tremble watching the more fully exposed battle between Gandalf and the Balrog in the Two Towers?

Jackson’s chief mistake was the attempt at converting the story into what I have heard referred to again and again as a battle between good and evil, read as between good characters and bad characters. That’s not Tolkien’s story, but more than enough remains of the original to whet the appetite of a world hungering for something real. I completely understand Christopher Tolkien’s reluctance, nonetheless.

I could go on and on.

Perhaps you should do a little outside reading on Tolkien. I’d start with Joseph Pearce and Bradley Birzer, Jr, but you could also try Stratford Caldecott and Peter J. Kreeft.

All of them and others have written plenty on Tolkien’s Catholic world-view or philosophy, and any of them is capable of explaining that millions of unsuspecting fans of the books – and to a lesser extent, the movies – have been unknowingly embracing with enthusiasm Catholic concepts, ideas, virtues, and more.

Edified to hear it. I’d be even more edified by examples — ideally, examples of Catholic concepts, ideas, and virtues reflected in the books but not the films.

For instance, I know Jackson deviate from the books by enhancing the roles of women; does that count?

More to the point, we wouldn’t have Tolkien in the first place were it not for “Commercialization”.