No I don't actually. There is much in the movies that is good. I really think so. Honest. For me unfortunately on balance the bad outweighs the good, but YMMV.

No. But if it were I'm sure it would beget a lot of sequels...

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGG, skwerels!

Boromir unsympathetic in the books? I think not. And what's wrong with Tolkien deciding to make a conflicted character? A character who's pride (and yes arrogance) is in a constant struggle with his desire to do the right and honourable thing? What's wrong with Tolkien creating a layered character who is personally in conflict with himself?

And if you are interested, I actually think that besides a little moment in TTT EE Boromir was a character Jackson got right! Sure one could say Jackson probably made Boromir a little more likeable, but Tolkien's Boromir was far from unsympathetic:
Jackson simply smoothed out some of the rough edges in Boromir, I would hardly call that a "change" or "invention."

When I think of change, I'm talking about something that is completely invented (Elves showing up at Helm's Deep) or something that is contradicts what we know about a character. For an example, in TTT Aragorn stops Theoden from killing Grima in a fit of rage, yet in ROTK Aragorn, in a fit of rage, decapitates the Mouth of Sauron.

Am I 100% positive the 2nd film is going to be a bust? No, but I would bet on it, and as I talked about before I think we are going to see a lot of inconsistancies (since there is going to have to be a lot of "invented" material). Rather ironic if you think about it. I mean the desire to bridge TH and LOTR may actually may lead to making a mess causing even more unanswered questions that were caused by some of Jackson's tweaking.

Look what happened to the Star Wars franchise and all the "spin off" novels. Everyone wanting to get a slice of the pie, just inventing a bunch of tales and using some of the same names from the original so they could slap on the Star Wars title and suck out as much money as they can.

Boromir ... sorry but I cannot discuss Star Wars on the same level with you. I have seen all the films and own them on DVD and watch them with my grandson from time to time. But I am no student of them.

One moment that stands out for me as changing Boromir was the throwing of the stone to agitate the Watcher in the waters ourside of Moria. Boromir is suppose to be this noble warrior, kingly of stature and all that implies. But Tolkien has him acting childish by throwing stones into the waters outside the walls of Moria. Then the Watcher emerges to attack the group and you are left wondering about the wisdom of such impetious actions. Jackson wisely changed that to having Pippin or Merry (do not remember which right now) throw the stones. It is a more immature action.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a conflicted character. I think Jackson would agree with you. However, Jackson selected Aragorn since he was central to all three movies. It gave Aragorn a character arc and gave the audience a chance to see him develop over the ten hours. Boromir was only in the first as a main figure. To have two warriors being conflicted and complex might have been one too many.

As far as the Elves go at Helms Deep it certainly brought a smile to my face and I thought it was a great thing to do. It made the battle even better for me. The Elves were not at HD in the book - but they did fight in other locations that were not in the film version. It is common and normal for a filmmaker to combine events as a way of saving time and money. This was one example and I think it worked and made the event even better.

There are other examples. In the book we only hear about the Ents destroying much of Isengard second hand. In the movie Jackson wisely made it something we see as it happens and balances it with the conclusion of Helms Deep giving some unity to the efforts of all against the forces of evil. I thought it worked perfectly.

Sure there are changes I did not like but not because they deviated from the book. The green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead render the entire battle on the Pellenor a futile effort. It was silly and way too overdone.

Just like you, I cannot see into the future either. That second bridge movie may be a real stinker or really great or something in between. I am willing to wait and reserve judgment until I see it.

I wouldn't say Jackson "wisely changed" that little scene. It didn't hurt anything, and worked out good for the reasons you mentioned. But Tolkien had a specific reason for making Boromir be the one to throw the stone in.

Boromir just wasn't hanging around throwing in stones, he was angry because he didn't want to go to Moria, but he was over ruled. He didn't want to be there so he took his frustration out by grabbing a stone around him and chucking it into the water.

Seems like a childish thing to do, I would say it arguably was, but that's how Boromir typically reacted when he didn't get his way. If you look at the situation he was in though, it's quite understandable. Back in Gondor he was the Captain-General, he was used to being the one to give out the orders and have people follow his orders. However, in the Fellowship we see his irritation with not being the "leader," and when he doesn't get his way he can get immature about it. Though we see his development because at the end he is the one who freely takes orders from Aragorn and asks Aragorn to go save his people.

I think a good change (and yes I will sincerely call it good change) is Jackson giving the line "Too long have you watched my sister. Too long have you haunted her steps." to Eomer and not Gandalf. In the books Gandalf is the one to say this to Grima, I think it is made more effective when it is Eowyn's brother who says it.

But, I digest and am about to go into all this discussion about which changes were good, bad, or ugly...but there are other threads for that discussion. So how about those two hobbit movies they are making?

In the hood of The Shire
 

We've been focussing on this "gap' idea that Hobbit II would be a bridge over the troubled waters between TH proper and LotR. But is that the only possible story thread available?

I wouldn't wonder if another scenario would be to consider the story and plight of Gollem. His backstory is ripe for taking on by any standard of contemporary analysis into what makes a villain/criminal/petty thief/gang member.

Gollem's background has all the essential credentials: his branch of Hobbits was run by his grandmother. It was a matriarchy apparently, which means that Smeagol lacked the all-essential male role model. His moma ran the roost and he had no incentive to make that crucial jump into manhood but remained fixated at the adolescent stage. Hence his easy addiction to the Ring and pre-occupation with games (well, riddle games at least) and fishing. A Huck Finn gone baaad. Economic problems aplenty, too.

It would really pull on the ole heart strings and contemporary social mores to provide a legitimate exploration of what makes a Gollem. It could also make Bilbo even more important, because then we would understand how very essential he is to Frodo's success--without whom, etc etc.

And it would be an interesting variation of the "whiny kid finds magical object" plotline, no?;)