I think docking any points from a movie called Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure on the basis of less than perfect plot structure seems to be missing a large chunk of the concept. 

I don't know if this is a justification problem or not, but this always bothered me.  In the Lord of the Rings movies, everyone keeps saying that the ring needs to be destroyed because its power corrupts and they don't want Sauron to have to come after them to find it.  So instead they go ahead with several battles in open warfare with the guy and his forces to buy time for ONE HOBBIT with no special skills whatsoever to take the ring to Mordor.

It just seems completely asinine.  For one- WHY exactly don't you want Sauron to march his forces all the way across Middle Earth and come to you?  That seems like exactly what you want to have happen.  They're going to move really fucking slowly, you have time to gather ALL your allies and you can probably hit them from all sides on their way over.  AND it would leave Mordor completely unguarded.  Secondly, why the hell are you trusting the little farm midget with the ring?  Aragorn is a RANGER.  He knows other RANGERS.  These are Middle Earth Spetsnaz, man.  I'm going to leave alone the "eagles take the damn thing" argument as it's been given a compelling counter argument, but allowing the hobbits to do it doesn't seem like a good idea outwardly, and they definitely almost failed several times due to incompetence.   I know that it's a story, and the whole POINT is that these two little hobbits save the world, but the setup involves making several very unwise decisions.

Eh, the why-hobbits thing was handled pretty deftly in the novel. It was more of a just-trust-us thing in the movies, but in the book it was really clear that hobbits, due to their inborn humility and down-to-middle-earthness are more resistant to the ring's temptations than anybody else. Frodo had to carry the ring for like a year or something, and he almost made it out okay. Gollum had the ring for hundreds of years, and the worst that came of that is that he lost his mind. Nobody but a hobbit could have done it, was the justification for that one, and I give it a pass.

I have a bigger problem with the fact that, due to the retrograde storytelling involved, the surviving Jedi ended up hiding Darth Vader's son — one of the two most important children in the galaxy — on Vader's homeworld … with his family … under his family name.

My pet theory? Luke was the decoy. Vader was supposed to murder him before he was on solid foods, thereby leaving Leia safe to grow up and make with the heroics.

This isn't really a justification but since I have a group of Tolkien-literate people all in one spot and I just watched Return of the King, I want to toss out something that occurred to me.

When the Black Captain falls to our blonde heroine, why doesn't anyone think to snatch up his INCREDIBLY FUCKING POWERFUL RING OF POWER that is just laying there on the battlefield?  I mean, he definitely, definitely has one.  And I can't think of a reason he WOULDN'T be wearing it.  And even if you aren't going to pick it up and USE the damn thing, it seems wholly irresponsible to just leave it there, which is what appears to happen.  I'm racking my brains and I'm pretty sure this wasn't addressed in the book either.  I mean, I give the hobbit and Eowyn the benefit of the doubt for not immediately snatching that shit, but when Gandalf saw it or heard about it you'd think that would be kind of a big deal to him.

Obviously nothing came of it, but it seems out of character for Gandalf to let a ring go unaccounted for like that, especially given the circumstances.