My thoughts:

[b:2lxh97u1]The Good[/b:2lxh97u1]
[list:2lxh97u1][*:2lxh97u1]The Soundtrack: simply put, this is one of my favourite movie soundtracks of all time. I love the music in it.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]The locations: Visually stunning, a gorgeous and effective backdrop to the story. The location scouts did a great job in finding these places, and PJ did well to choose them.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]Gollum: Much has been said about the technical process of bringing Gollum to the screen, but it deserves to be mentioned again, especially in light of the time at which it was done. Andy Serkis' performance was also very good.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]The visual effects: There was definitely a lot of digital effects, and they were quite good, but PJ wanted to use real sets and miniatures as much as possible. I think this was a wise move as it allowed the more fantastic elements to be visualized well while not forcing the actors to wander around aimlessly in front of endless blue screens (Star Wars prequels, anyone?).[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]Worldbuilding: one of the most well-known parts of the book is the highly detailed world that Tolkien created, and PJ and his team did an amazing job of bringing a similar level of detail to the films. I've seen very few films that devoted as much effort to making the fictional world seem just as developed, layered, and historied as our own.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]The acting (most of it): I loved the performances of Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, Sean Astin, Ian Holm, and Ian McKellen (though mainly in the first film). Even Orlando Bloom wasn't bad if you look past the showboating. I didn't like all the actors, but most of them (in particular the ones I mentioned) did excellent.[/*:m:2lxh97u1][/list:u:2lxh97u1]

[b:2lxh97u1]The Bad[/b:2lxh97u1]
[list:2lxh97u1][*:2lxh97u1]The acting (some of it): There were a few performances I didn't like. I had a hard time connecting with Elijah Wood's Frodo or Hugo Weaving's Elrond since they were presented as good guys and I felt a few of the actors (the guy who played Celeborn, for example) were too wooden.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]The writing: This is probably my biggest complaint: I don't think the writing was very good. Some of the lines were clearly inspired by Tolkien, but a lot of it was cheesy (i.e., "Let's hunt some orc", anachronistic, or otherwise out of place. I also cringe every time I hear Theoden channel Darth Vader as he is dying, even though it's an emotional scene for me.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]Fighting: I actually really enjoyed a lot of the battle scenes, but I think the proportion of the film devoted to them was extremely lopsided. The War of the Ring features heavily in the story, yes, but in the second two films the more peaceful moments are lost. This criticism doesn't apply to FOTR, though.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]Realism, or the lack thereof: for the most part the film-makers embraced the idea that Middle-earth should be realistic (once you get past a few obvious fantastical elements), but they lost sight of that goal in some of their decisions. Examples include the largely grass-less plains of Rohan, the impossibly large mace of the Witch-king, and the [i:2lxh97u1]hollow head[/i:2lxh97u1] on the battering ram Grond. While all these elements are cool in their own way, they make it harder to enter the secondary world without question.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]Inconsistencies: how did the Elves get to Helm's Deep so fast? How did Faramir's Rangers get instant updates on the war in Rohan? Why does the geography of the films not match the maps we are shown? As with realism issues, these points break immersion in the story. The EEs helped a lot with this, though.[/*:m:2lxh97u1][/list:u:2lxh97u1]

[b:2lxh97u1]Conclusion[/b:2lxh97u1]
[list:2lxh97u1][*:2lxh97u1]Most of the criticisms apply only partially, as the filmmaker's performance in various fields varied over three very long films.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]The problems I find with the films are far outweighed by the good I find in them, so while I dislike them, they don't ruin the overall experience for me.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]These are some of my favourite films.[/*:m:2lxh97u1]
[*:2lxh97u1]I've probably forgotten things, so I'll mention them later as they come to me.[/*:m:2lxh97u1][/list:u:2lxh97u1]

Eldo, your post deserves an in-depth response. I don't have time right now, but I will definitely come back to this. (By the way, I was thinking more of Petty and perhaps Odo when I posted in the comment section of Ady's blog. Compared to them you're almost as "liberal" as me ).

[b:316oqdyz]GB[/b:316oqdyz]

This is my first post here so just a little about my perspective. I did not read the books until I saw the first movie (which I didn't see until it hit cable)..ANd I have read the 4 books (including The Hobbit) a few times since.

As far as the first movie was concerned, I was blown away. I thought it near perfect. I don't mean in whether or not it stayed true to the book, (I had not read it yet) just as a science fiction movie itself. I thought the action scenes were wonderful, I didn't notice any poor acting or dialogue. It kept me fully engaged and interested. I like the movies, ironically, in the order in which they were released. Fellowship first, Twin Towers second, Return of the King last. By the time I saw Two Towers, I think I had read the books and am not sure if that facts clouds my view a little. The Helms Deep scene is incredible, although I wish the Orcs stomping up and down just before the attack would have been held a little longer. Also the cheesey factor was ramped up quite a bit in my opinion. Specifically Legolas sliding down the stairs on the shield firing arrows as he went. And does he ever run out of arrows???? Concerning the ROTK, I think that could have been cut by 1/2 hour at least. (unless you wanted to add the scouring of the Shire in there somewhere) The movie became a little painful to watch after the ring was destroyed. My personal preference would have been to end the movies as they started. Have Galadriel narrate Aragorn becoming King, the Hobbit return to the Shire, and the Ring Bearers moving on to the Undying Lands.

I have different issues with what was and wasn't left out of the movies, but I think it was an incredibly tough job turning those books into commercially successful movies. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job. I also think the movies turned many non LOTR people, like myself, into big fans of Tolkien. Just on that point, I think you can consider the movies a success.

Also, I think a seperate movie could be made of the Hobbits travels through the Old Forest and the interactions with Tom Bombadil.

I am all for more people finding Tolkiens writing through the films- but think how many more might have done so had the films actually been good instead of just commercial.
For a film to be good it has to be internally consistent with itself- the LoTR films are not. I am still waiting on someone to offer a reasonable explanation for why when Faramir decides to drag Frodo all the way to Osgiliath he doesn't then seize the Ring, and why the deciding factor in not seizing it is seeing Frodo trying to give it to the Enemy, thus destroying everything Faramir loves- why would he let Frodo go after that? It can't be a good film with poorly thought out nonsense like that in it.

On a side note- and I hope this is merely a matter of awaiting moderation- but I replied on the main web page to the point GB made which inspired this thread- and whilst in a couple of lines I was critical of PJ as director I was in no way rude, offensive or abusive in any way- yet my comment seems to be missing. Surely those who run affairs here are not so 'petty' as to remove anything which is critical of PJ from the main page- it does seem suspicous that every comment there is a 'isn't PJ the most marvelous person on the planet' style comment.

I still haven't had time to do this topic justice. But I agree with Eldo regarding the realism (and a number of other things).

But I have to say, I thought the Casting and Acting was exceptional. I didn't have a problem with anyone; they were all perfect (this isn't necessarily regarding comparisons of the Film Characters to the Book Characters, which is a different subject altogether. Though I do think the Film Characters by and large captured the essentials of the Book Characters--but again, we've already discussed our disagreements on other threads).

[b:3bzr4naw]GB[/b:3bzr4naw]

Good thread Eldo. Agreed with most of what you said. I think Elijah deserves a bit more credit though. Dont you just love lotr, could talk about it for ever (well, till the end of the week anyway)

My vote would have been to get someone in to do the script who wanted to adapt LoTR and not make their own film up 'based' on what Tolkien wrote. But you all know that already! But I've just been 'nice' on another thread so got to make up for it somewhere.

Can't say Istari that I was much a fan of the Saruman impalation scene either but it was (just) preferable to the bizarre choice to not reslove the Saruman issue at all in the theatrical version, especially after they 'enlarged' Sarumans role in Fellowship to make him the main on screen villian of the piece.
I actually liked quite a lot of what was reinstated in the EE versions, it seemed to me that when it came to deciding what would make the theatrical cuts they favoured special effects and long action scenes over character and plot development. Although there was a fair bit of unneccessary extension to some of the action scenes in the EE versions there was a lot of character stuff that the films are better for than without. In fact I would go as far as to say that if their had not been the EE versions I would rate the films even lower than I already do, which is saying something.