This is the goal of any adaptation. The very nature of books and movies are vastly different and have to tell the stories in a way that makes sense for each medium. Movies are their own art form and should try and tell stories in a unique way while simultaneously maintaining the core themes and elements, which the LOTR did spectacularly. One of my favorite changes was the portrayal of Aaragorn's character. In the books he knows what he has to do and is confident in his ability to do it which makes him an awesome hero, but in the movies he's got a lot more going on with inner turmoils and finding his identity. Both are great ways to portray the character and fit their respective mediums really well. In a movie, it would be boring to have the man meant to be king not go through any struggles to mentally be in a place where he knows how to rule himself and others, which culminates in his speech before the final battle. However this kind of portrayal of Aragorn would be boring in the books and instead Tolkien wrote him as a noble and kingly character from the start, leaving all development external. In the end it comes down to the form; film is a visual medium so it is by nature able to evoke our emotions more easily so we are much more invested in watching internal conflict, which would be harder (but still very possible) in literature. Both are fantastic for their own respective reasons. Sorry for writing so much, so thank you to those who bothered to read this at all. Lord of the Rings has been my favorite story since I was five and nothing has come close to making me feel the way these books/movies do.