Originally posted by Willaume100% agreed! The ridiculously extended battles (Pelennor and Hornburg were both 1 chapter battles in the books, not hour long shitfests), the whiny Elrond crap, the random focus on the Uruks... so much was pulled from Jackson's hairy arse... oh, and Sauron looked pretty stupid in physical form... could've kept it subtle and not shown him, used a shadow or whatever and never actually shown him... on another rant... Jackson had Aragorn turn into a murdering little prick with the Mouth of Sauron, and what the hell gave him the idea of having Aragorn fight Sauron??? Thank god that was cut! They were good films, but...
The books are incomparable. I enjoyed the films, yes, but they were too much a "Hollywoodism." The books have that much more depth to them.
I don't see how you canrant about the films.
Peter Jackson done a wonderful job, and the films should be cherished, not slandered. Given, it's not a 100% adaption of the book, but books and films are two very different mediums, and it would not have worked any other way.
Of course, it's very easy for me to say that, but then again it's very easy for you to say what you said; Peter Jackson was the one who dealt with the compromises and produced a trilogy of films worthy of their namesake.