I love the LotR movies, I second PocketWraith.

Except that the pieces with Frodo, Sam and Gollem are really boring in the movies but I like them a lot in the books.

I think people just throw these random phrases about trying to sound clever or purist: and that is really garbage. Of course, people have different imagination about adaptations. I would certainly like to see the 17 years gap between the Bagginses set off. I would like to see Gildor, Tom Bombadil and Goldbery. And Glorfindel, of course. I would like to see Boromir journey North and fend off rogues in Tharbad. Or Rangers protecting the Shire. I would like to see six movies instead of just three for the LotR. And no Army of the Dead being decisive in the Pelennor Fields. And Denethor not being just mad. I actually have less issues with the Hobbit as far as the adaptation goes.

However, any sane person that is accustomed to film as a medium, should be able to appreciate the amazing work done to the movies. I think Tolkien himself would have been thrilled, as were some of his descendants and millions of his readers.

Of course people have different opinions. Thanks for pointing that out. The first movie (fellowship) was pretty solid, but even in that movie you had the stupid scene at the going away party of fireworks hitting a hobbit in the butt or whatever. I mean I just don't want to see stuff like far jokes in LOTR, and there was a lot of that. Any dialogue not based on Tolkien was laughably poor. One of my favorite episodes in the entire series is when Frodo falls into a coma and Sam ends up severely wounding Shelob when she tries to crush him. There are so many amazing g images and ideas in that section, all about the nature of good and evil and weakness and strength. The movie just basterdizes it by turning Sam into Rambo and the sequence on film is utterly forgettable and generic. That is just a taste of why the movies sucked. There was a lot of spectacle and flash, but it was hollow and small, unlike the books which seem vast and barely explored.

But I just meant as a movie itself, adaptation is only a part of it. And even as an adaptation there have been great things: it is not easy to explain such a vast world within a few minutes, and the Prologue itself does a very good job of it. Of course, it is often simplified, otherwise it might turn the vast majority of the viewers off.

As pictures themselves, however, it is where these movies truly shine: production design, photography, music (more so in LotR but complementary in the Hobbit), acting (even more in the Hobbit).

ps: Rambo? Boy, that is a very poor comparison...

The LOTR trilogy was a great adaptation of the book. And "Tolkien Purists" can say they're missing some key element that makes them inferior or whatever, but the point is that people who would never have approached the materials watched those movies and got to enjoy the story. Not everyone likes sitting down and reading a book that can be rather daunting at times, what with all the locations and characters and background information being thrown around. Having the films around takes absolutely nothing away from the books. I didn't much care for the Hobbit films- I still like the Hobbit. I will never understand the sentiment that the stories need to be protected and locked away. I guess if the goal was to make them more obscure so less people can enjoy them - mission accomplished, since I can't say I've ever had a discussion about Feanor or the Silmarils outside of internet chat rooms.

Just to add to the film adaption debate. I thought the LotR films were excellent for the most part (The Hobbit ones were pretty bad though) - sure there were some silly bits in the action scenes that I would have preferred weren't there, and some bits were a bit long and drawn out, but on the whole they were good entertaining films with a reasonably good mix of drama and action.

I think what a lot of people forget sometimes when comparing film to book is that they are two very different mediums . You can't just film every page of the book as-is, it would be a rubbish film (regardless of the source material). The LotR trilogy in particular are not easy books to adapt. Many of the cast & crew were passionate about the books (Jackson himself was a huge fan) and that really shows in the production I think.

The films give us a new perspective into Middle Earth and the story of LotR, and have created a new gateway to the world of Middle Earth. How many more people have now read the books as a result of seeing the films?