[Boromir88]

Whereas I agree with most things you have said on this thread, I must disagree with this because the logical implication is that some personalities are not disposed to the temptation of the Ring.~Elempi

Good point, and nice post. I think the one exception to this would be Tom Bombadil though.

You will notice that though the Ring is a serious matter and has great power for all the inhabitants of the world of The Lord of the Rings even the best and most holy, it does not touch Tom Bombadil at all.~The Lord of the Ring's Companion: Letter to Christopher Fettes, 1961

If we think about the Ring, it is about mastery and control. Mastery over your foes, of power, of wealth,...etc whatever you desire. The Ring is about having control. Well this has no effect on Tom, because Tom somehow has achieved his own self-mastery. (Goldberry and even Tom himself says 'He is Master'). So, anything that relies on control (such as the Ring) has no effect on Tom:

'No,' said Gandalf 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'~The Council of Elrond

Good point, but I would say Tom B. is the one exception.

But what it transformed Gollum during the decades into is another matter and why it didn't manage to wield Bilbo under it's command...?~Nogrod

Bilbo was just falling under the control of the Ring, he was:
'Thin and stretched he said. A sign that the ring was getting control.'~The Shadow of the Past
But Bilbo had acquired the Ring out of pity and because he acquired the Ring out of good intent, it took longer for the Ring to get a hold over Bilbo. Bilbo is never able to completely forget about the Ring, but he was the only person (up to that point) who had willingly given it up after possessing it.

Let me first start off, before I say anything else, by saying I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. I would hate to see it be reduced and squelched into a 'purists are snobs' and 'filmists are ignorant know-nothings.' So lets just stop assuming those two things and get to the discussion.

Obviously the movies are very popular, and there are a lot of people who love them. I'm sure those who do have good reasons for liking the movies. But it doesn't matter how popular a movie is or how many awards its won, there's still going to be people who don't like them. If posts can be made about how great Peter Jackson was in making the films, I expect the same treatment be shown to his critics. This is a forum, not a consensus. As popular as the books were, before anyone even considered making them into movies, Tolkien had his fair share of critics. I don't agree with them, but there have been several good critics who have supported their opinions. We all have different tastes. Ok with that out of the way...

There is a difference between 'interpretation' and an outright alteration. With interpretation, the same end is reached, it's just how that end is reached which is what makes one interpretation different from the other. Many of our popular folktales (Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel...etc) have a variety of interpretations.

As an example, I'll take Wolfgang Petersen, who directed Troy. Troy was slammed by critics for not being historically accurate and for it becoming 'Hollywoodized.' In many ways they are probably right that it was Hollywoodized, but here is an example of interpretation. We all know the story of Achilles being shot in the heel with an arrow and he dies.

The Greek interpretation was that he was dipped in the River Styx and the only part that wasn't was the heel that his mother held him by. So, when he's shot in the heel he dies.

Petersen shows a different, more modernized interpretation that takes out the 'Gods.' And I absolutely love what Petersen does, he keeps in the importance in the belief of the Gods in his movie, but he takes 'myth' out of the story and creates a new interpretation. In the movie, Achilles is first shot by 3 arrows in the chest, and then one in the heel. Super-man hunk Brad Pitt is able to pull out the 3 arrows in his chest, but doesn't pull out the one in his heel. When the soldiers come to see their unstoppable killing machine dead, the only arrow that remains is the one in the heel...ahh.

That is interpretation, the same conclusion is reached...Achilles dead and an arrow in his heel. How Achilles reached his end is the various interpretations. Did Petersen make changes to the Iliad, he sure as heck did. But he knew he was making very well the type of movie he was making and never made the boastful claims that he thought he was improving the story.

Basically, I fail to see out of the books, how Jackson 'interpretted' Sauron as an eyeball, or the Mouth of Sauron goes back to Mordor without a head, or Saruman and Gandalf have a wizard duel, or Saruman shoots a fireball and falls to a spikey death, or Gimli is a belching cheap comedic character, or Denethor is an incompetant punching bag for a wizard, or Gandalf getting completely owned by the Witch-King, or a bunch of Elves teleporting there way to Helm's Deep, or there is some Uruk leader named Lurtz...these are not 'interpretations' they are complete changes. And these are the ones that just sprung into my head within a couple minutes.