Friends of mine named a daughter Peregrine, called Pippin for short -- she's 16 now and kind of alternately chuffed and annoyed that her cool and unique name has been suddenly popularized.

Okay! Who wants to help me abuse the thread again to write another paper?

One of my final questions is "What aspects of the book did the film convey most and least successfully?"

My initial thoughts are something like this: The film was very successful at actually creating the locations and the creatures. Gollum, of course. The Black Riders, which are hella more creepy in the movie than in the book. Anything that really involved costuming or props - the Elves looked like Elves. The hobbits looked like hobbits. Rivendell, Moria, Minas Tirith, Edoras, all seemed like real places.

I also think the movies did an excellent job of conveying the spirit of the story rather than sticking slavishly to things that would have been unfilmable for various reasons.

Less successful: Many of the relationships in the book were truncated or altered. Faramir and Eowyn (although that will supposedly be restored). Aragorn's friendship with Gandalf. Less depth to the hobbit community, although I was just as happy to be spared Frodo's seventeen-year wait before he left with the Ring. Changes to Faramir and Denethor's characters.

Other thoughts?

Changes to Faramir and Denethor's characters.

There's the dual-sided argument to the alteration to Faramir's character. I don't find it (entirely) a bad thing.

Got nothing nice to say about Denethor.

As for alterations of dubious motivation -- Arwen/Glorfindel. I saw the point, the idea that so much had been said in other texts about Arwen's whole point for existence, but she needed a justification and presence in this trilogy -- my problem ended up perhaps being more with the acting than the concept. Or perhaps the execution fell down somewhere in the middle.

Also, the removal of Tom Bombadil, and the effect of changing the dialogue (like losing Eowyn's phrasing as she killed her bad guy).

You're sad that they took out Tom Bombadil? I reread most of FoTR this weekend, and I was about ready to kill myself if that section didn't end.

You're sad that they took out Tom Bombadil?

No, not at all. But with his removal and the changes to Faramir, everyone's affected by the ring -- there are opinions that this breaks some of the story.

I also didn't mind the changing of Eowyn's speech. They'd already taken so much liberty with the dialogue, she'd have sounded clunky in context.

I hadn't reread since before the movies came out, and I apparently retained very little, so it was interesting seeing really how much they had changed. Bilbo's completely out of the Council at Rivendell, the Council itself is simplified, timelines are compressed all over the place. Oh, and I suppose I could talk about the changes to Merry and Pippin too, since they're much less agressively clueless in the books.

I was happy to see Bombadill go, but yeah, we could have lost some elf vs. elephant CGI to hear

But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund’s daughter.  You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless!  For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.

But Matt, wouldn't they have had to change the way she spoke throughout the movies, and then how the rest of Rohan spoke, to make it seem like battle didn't make her break out into Shakespeare?

I didn't get the impression it was a time tradeoff.

I suppose I could talk about the changes to Merry and Pippin too, since they're much less agressively clueless in the books.

I think this is one of the things that seventeen years in the Shire could have mitigated. Their arc seemed perfectly natural in the books, but I had a much deeper idea of what was hobbit. This way round, you need to kinda set them behind the starting line, give them an extra handicap so their delta is notable.

In the books, it was fairly clear during the attempt to cross Caradhras thet it was the mountain itself opposing the Fellowship, while in the movie, they made it seem that it was Saruman's doing.

The Paths of the Dead sequence is different. In the book, Aragorn give the dead leave to go long before they reach Minas Tirith. In the movie, it is the dead who save the day.

This way round, you need to kinda set them behind the starting line, give them an extra handicap so their delta is notable.

And I'm guessing that it was also done so that you did have someone more innocent, so that Merry could have the moment with the Ents when he argues that they need to defend the Shire, and so that Pippin could come into his own in RoTK.

That's another thing, isn't it? The whole Merry and Theoden and Pippin and Denethor relationships. (Notice that I deliberately did not use the slashes there.)