Love the films. LOTR is one of my passions and they're just incredible cinematic achievements, all three of them. The extended editions are fantastic and worth every extra second of holding your pee until the credits roll. I don't much mind the differences between the films and the books, as I think they make the films better and are executed quite well. I can't believe how good they still look today. They're the best fantasy films ever made. That's lightning in a bottle, I honestly don't think we'll get another LOTR-related film of such high quality for a very long time.
I'm far more critical of the Hobbit films. I don't enjoy watching them (I don't even own the Blu-rays of the second or third films yet) and am genuinely annoyed by many of the changes, original content, and splitting of the story into three freaking films. 2 would've been just fine. I really wish they would have spent more time and effort giving the party of dwarves backstory and character development instead of spending it on original characters and bad, shoehorned love stories, cartoonish goblin chases and making most of the third film one big battle. Don't get me started on Azog and Radagast.
Totally agree with all of this. I remember reading the books in my early 20s and them having a huge impact on me. The original trilogy was a triumph, with great casting, groundbreaking visual effects, but still managed to capture the spirit and pathos of the original story. I don't even mind the multiple endings that it normally gets criticism for. To me, it feeling like each of the characters deserve their own time in the spotlight.
Speaking of endings, the decision to leave out the Scouring Of The Shire was quite a brave one, but I think it works on screen. In the book, I totally get the idea that war is something that follows you home, but maybe this would have been just too much for the movie.
One little nitpick I have of the movies is the portrayal of Galadriel. She is quite different than the version of her I imagined from the books. In the books, she's kind, wise, beautiful, but her power is something that is very subtle, and just hinted at. In the movies, I think she comes off as more menacing, maybe it's due to the slow voice and the "ghost freakout" scene, but I remember thinking that was a bit off when I first watched it. ("Welcome Frodo, one who has seen THE EYE")
The Hobbit movies were a major step down in quality, but not totally terrible. I think the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin was spot on. Smaug was very well done. There was just so much extra fluff and padding, when they could have made a really tight story over 2 movies. I think there's a video where PJ himself, to his credit, admits to mistakes being made. I don't think they had anywhere near enough time for pre-production and were forced into winging a lot of things.
On the flip side, I recall thinking the books were poorly paced (get started on your quest already Hobbits, quit messing round with Tom Bombadil for like 6 chapters!), and once the Fellowship got separated, the narratives weren't held together well.
I'm not sure I'd agree that they are poorly paced. The books were written in a certain style, which definitely takes a while to get used to. When I read LOTR I feel like I'm settling in for the long haul, as opposed to the likes of the latest Jack Reacher novel, which I'll pick up and tear through in very little time. I think it's really more of a style and genre thing.