Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

well the skelington on TH stinks

It stinks even worse, I'll give you that.

I think there are pretty frequent changes in LOTR, too, they're just not the sort of thing that most people are looking for.  I don't wanna get into nit-picking over which specific changes are more significant, but I think the reason TH gets so much more criticism is that it just rings false to many people.  For all of its changes, LOTR still had kept the Fellowship (and the theme of companionship) at the heart of the story.  Even the changed characters remained well-defined, and the protagonists are all likable and sympathetic.  TH fails to do any of this.  In LOTR, each film takes time to explore at least one setting (the Shire in FOTR, Rohan in TTT, and Gondor in ROTK) in detail, give some more depth to characters who would otherwise be extras, and make the whole thing feel more real.  Even in action sequences, they take their time and let the atmosphere of the setting seep into the fabric of the films.  Compare Moria and Goblin-town, for example, or Amon Hen and the "fir trees" from the end of AUJ, or Helm's Deep and Erebor. The former in each of those examples feel like real places with histories and inhabitants (or that used to have inhabitants).  I think the little scenes that add depth contribute to a sense of knowing the setting before shit starts going down, which I find to be a very important part of what makes LOTR work.  Some of this is a difference in the source material -- Middle-earth as a setting is a huge part of the appeal of LOTR the book -- but that's not really an excuse PJ can use since he's spent so much time trying to make his TH films look and feel like LOTR.