[Elladan and Elrohir]

For the record, I have heard the BBC adaptation, and it's outstanding, though parts of it -- such as the Nazgul, the Orcs, and Gollum -- make me cringe.

The BBC adaptation was made for radio. You can more or less transpose a book to radio without having to change much. It can be like reading the book aloud, with different actors in different roles, and adding sound effects. It's totally different for a movie. Pacing is different, story arc is different, what works or doesn't work is different. People often get offended at some of the major changes PJ and Co. made: "I can't believe they changed that! Why'd they do that?" Well, it wasn't just 'cause they felt like it, in most cases, anyway. PJ, Walsh, and Boyens won an Oscar for their screenwriting efforts, so I'd say they know a bit more about the craft and about the process of adapting books to film than we do.

Having said that, that of course doesn't give them the license to do whatever they want with LOTR and get away with it because of their superior knowledge. We're obviously still free to question changes, and it may well be that PJ and Co. are wrong in some areas.

And also, davem, while I would agree that PJ and Co. do well when they stick to the book, some of the films' greatest moments come in their departures. The lighting of the beacons in ROTK springs to mind immediately. The first encounter with the Black Rider. The death of Boromir. The exorcism of Theoden. Shelob's spectacularly suspenseful sting of Frodo. The plunge at Mount Doom. Regardless of what you think of those scenes' infidelity to the books, they certainly played well on screen, didn't they? It's not that they're better than the books; it's just that they work better in a movie than the way the book had it. And I don't think it's blaspheming Tolkien to admit that.