Well, hate may be a strong sentiment here, but I couldn't have been more disappointed. I have alot of reasons but the biggest reason is the change of the main characters qualities from the book.
1. the relationship b/w frodo and sam!! In the book frodo and sam couldn't have been closer, but in the movie he actually has frodo drawing a sword on sam. He even has gollum plotting b/w sam and frodo planting seeds in frodo's head that sam wanted the ring for himself.
2. the way he made King theodon look like a panzy. In the movie the king was always trying not to fight the orcs or even wanting to go to the aid of gondor. This was even after the spell was lifted off him.
3. They way they made elrond look like he didn't want Aragorn to be with Arwen. Aragorn was like a son to Elrond. In the book Aragorn had his destiny to fulfill before he could wed arwen, but elrond never tried to stop them from being together.
So the problem I have with Peter jackson's work with LOTR was how much he changed the characters qualites. This tells me he didn't either read book enough or he completely misunderstood them. Or worse yet, he thought he was a better writer than Tolkien.
I understand taking things out of the book and doing little hollywood tricks, but when you change the quality of the characters then you are going to far.
I have read LOTR many, many times and I am not trying to claim I am an expert on LOTR, but I have read it enough to know what each character stands for and their essential qualites. That is what I loved about the book. So I dont understand why Jackson changed what the characters stood for or what they were about.

Yadda Yadda so what the film is different from the books well first the books are boring as it is easier to watch a film and is quicker. Plus because their different means you have two different stories that are like the same. Who cares about differences from one to another because you come out with the same end product and the movie crew did need to make the story a bit more interesting as things as they are normally are sometimes better adapted but still i mean no offence to you or the author of the book as people have their own opinion but i loved the film because the movie showed some sort of battle so think what you think and i will say what i say as opinion is an opnion at the end of the day.

I am both a LOTR book and movie lover. You may find it easier if you try to view them as distinctly separate things. You have to admit - Tolkien wasn't so great on character development. But the world he created was a great one. I also think that the movies had some so-so scriptwriting. But the production designers and the score blew me away. So each is wonderful for different reasons. There was no way that Jackson could have faithfully reproduced what was in my head, but he did pretty darn well. (He did better than that boring Narnia movie...but that's another post.)

I don't know if I would say that Tolkein was weak on character development. But, like I said, Jackson changed the characters. He made them different from what they were in the book and I dont think he changed them for the best. He made King Theodon look like puss. I would rather King Theodon had been braver, stronger, and more loyal to Gondor like the book's character. What was to be gained by making him look like a weak King? It was things like that that had me so upset. It took me 3 times to finish the two towers. lol.
There were some great performances by Mortensen as Aragorn and Ian McKellen as Gandolf. And the special effects and set design were great. Jackson was also very smart about making all the movies at one time rather than trying to do them at separate times.
I just had problems with the changes made in what the characters were about and what they stood for. There was nothing wrong with the characters as they were developed by Tolkein. (Didn't Elrond look like a gay vulcan?)
I did tried to see the books and the movies as seperate enties and that did help make them more tolerable.
I usally don't get that upset about movies that change from the books. That is always going to happen, but they usually dont change what the characters were about. ok. I think I am done whinning now. I just had to get it off my chest.

I agree with joeyjojo that if you watch the film and read the book and view them as separate things, then you should be fine. And i agree that characters were changed etc (um.. hello, Arwen was barely given a mention in the books! what warrants her half the movie credits?) but characters were cut out that helped Tolkien shape his wonderful world. The characters i'm partiularly peeved off about being cut are Goldberry and good ole Tom Bombadil. Not only that, but the way the hobbits meet Strider is COMPLETELY different to the way portrayed in the movie.I understand Peter Jackson needed to keep people interested, but i'll tell ya what, people who weren't fans, were pretty sick and tird of the whole affair by the end of the first movie, let alone the next two. I appreciate the extended editions because you can see that the hobbits KNOw what elves are, because they croos the shire to go to the harbour! Also... the movies make it seem like a couple fo months and the saga is over, when in fact it was just under an entire year.
I'm waiting to see what New Line Cinema decide to do with The Hobbit seeing as they purchased the rights to the movie version of it. Lets's just see whether they stay true to the book or make IT another story yet again...

I don't think it was ever Peter Jackson's intention to make the films like the book. He was probably more interested in the epic battles and the originality of the whole Middle Earth thing. So yeah he may have altered it so much that the only thing the book and the film had in common was the names but I'm not complaining.

I have a few issues with what Jackson did with the movies, but overall I have to say he did a fantastic job. There are certain things that have to be lost in the transition from book to screen. I think Jackson changed it enough so that it would work as a movie, while complementing the books nicely.

I mean, honestly - I have plenty of friends who went and read the books after seeing the first movie. You can at least give the movie credit for that.

I am going to rewatch the entire series tomorrow in order to avoid 'Black Friday' traffic. Expect to see my rereview soon.

Honestly, I never gave into the whole "LOTR is amazing!" bandwagon. I thought they were ok at best. Idk maybe it's just me but I just didn't think they were all that great.

monumental task to make movies of the books. I needed to see them as separate entities, that is to consider the movies as based on the books, and then enjoyed the movies greatly.

I just rewatched the trilogy, and really enjoyed it. I haven't read the books, so I can't comment on that angle. But the films have a really convincing gravity to them -- the actors have so much conviction you can't help but go with it.

The visual effects are incredible most of the time. Unless I'm watching excessively closely, I totally buy Gollum as a flesh-and-blood character. The orcs were kind of disappointing sometimes...in certain scenes it's painfully obvious they're just dudes with false teeth and prosthetic makeup--not that we don't know that anyway, but occasionally attention is really drawn to the fact.

But the performances are stellar, especially Ian McKellan. And to keep things so consistent over 8+ hours of film is a giant task of logistics that few directors could have managed so gracefully.

The LOTR movies had complete success in capturing the mood as well as the central themes of the books. Yes, there were differences. It would be impossible for there not be differences. The books are great, but so are the movies. They deserve every bit of the critical acclaim they have recieved. And Spartan 117 - yes it is quicker to watch a movie rather than read a book. I hope you are like 12 years old because then you have an excuse for making that asinine comment.

imgonna have to say aragorn and arwen wasn't delved that deeply into in the actual book save appendage the tale of aragorn and arwen. i think they are both great (the films and the books), but there is much more tension in the film, because the gollum corrupting frodo thing brought tension to the film, and aragorn and elrond had a much more interesting relationship in the film