From my perspective, I'm going to pretend Star Wars is a true mythology. One that's bigger than its inventor. That means I can then focus on what I like and ignore the substandard qualities. This allows me to be content with everything enough and finally give George Lucas a break (he's still not getting my money for crappy products though).

But, I agree with CO that the prequels are stuck in our heads. So, at the same time I'll regard them as a loose and mock-worthy portrayal of the real back-story. When I watch 4-6 I'll remember the prequels in a very hazy way that actually fits with the original trilogy and doesn't make Ben into a liar. With that then in mind, I'll mostly watch 4-6 and maybe give a quick viewing to 1-3 on very rare occasions (laughing at or skipping past the unacceptable scenes).

Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
I've never read The Lord of the Rings books. Is Return very faithful? After loving the shit out of the first 2 movies, I kind of felt like I wasn't "getting" something. I think I was expecting a LOT more time spent on Viggo Mortensen, becoming the Lawrence of Arabia of middle earth. There seemed to be a lot of time spent on "Sam is such a good friend". And "Sean Bean's dad sure is nuts".

As a huge fan of the books, I would say that it was generally faithful, but in a hyper, comic-book-cheese way. So much of the meaning and growth to the story was completely skipped by Jackson.

Specifically, about Aragorn, RotK did not seem to capture his becoming the king well at all. It left out many of his key scenes from the book. Specifically, I wanted to see him as a man who's force of will defeated Sauron's (using the palantír) and see him as the gentle healer who gives new hope to Gondor. It seemed like Jackson only wanted to see Aragorn as one of the gang buddies who's only good at leading because he can kick ass. The speech that Aragorn spoke before the final battle seemed awkward using that approach.