I'm very glad I found TORN 3 years ago and was able to follow the progress from the casting and location scouting stage to the present. It's made a world of difference in my understanding of the process that PJ went through.
He originally was told to make it in one movie, refused, and presented a two-movie script. He couldn't get studios to bite. He came to Hollywood to meet with various studios to try to get backing. They all turned him down except New Line, where fortunately the decision-maker was a Tolkien fan who gave PJ the green light to make three films. Then the script had to be rewritten and reexpanded from two movies to three. It's my strong suspicion that a lot of the major changes here are leftovers from the extremely torn apart and condensed TTT which was absorbed into the other two books for the two movie script. I don't know that that's true, but it seems very likely.
Another comforting thought (at least to me) is knowing that many copies of the book were worn out throughout the filming, that the actors carried them around and brought them to PJ, Fran, and Philippa on many occasions to point out something about a scene or a character. And Christopher Lee, the set's resident Tolkien scholar (having read the books yearly since they were published) was always there to comment or question. With all of that attention to detail, it seems to me that major changes to the story must have been things that could not be changed or that it was thought would contribute in some way to a plot point or exposition later on. I look forward to the director/writer commentary for TTT, it should be fascinating.
It is a shock to see moments you're so familiar with gone or greatly changed. And it hurts even more if it happens to be a favorite moment. I know, I've had many in both films that will either never be seen or are changed. But I know from those years of watching these movies grow and talking with people here about how we would all do it, that NO movie is going to be Tolkien's LOTR, simply because no one really knows what that would be like. When we read, we all see OUR LOTR. I know, because whenever we talk about how a thing should be done, everyone has a different opinion from everyone else. I came to the conclusion a while ago that even if Tolkien's imagination was put directly on the screen, we would all find many things about it jarring because it would be so different from how we've all fondly imagined it. So yes, this is PJ's LOTR. He's the lucky fan who got the backing to make his vision. He's also the unlucky fan who had to deal with the immense headache of actually making it. He has said that he still wakes up in the night dreaming that people have just told him about an emergency he has to fix and are standing around waiting for his decision.
Considering what he has accomplished, and those many moments on screen where it does exactly match my own imagination, I cannot bring myself to say that he has failed. When I read the books, I continue to see my LOTR, which I love. When I see the movies, I see PJ's LOTR which has some wonderful moments I never imagined, or not so well...and some moments on which he and I do not see eye to eye and probably never will. But I'd rather have PJ's LOTR to watch than none at all.
I think this is really the thing you're struggling with: you wanted to see your LOTR on screen, and not someone else's. I found that multiple viewings help a lot with that. When you get used to what is there, it's easier to see the merit in it. Familiarity helps a lot.
As for the complexity, alas, we are getting three three-hour movies, not three six-hour movies (which we'd all love, no doubt). Complexity will be lost, as will many of those lovely nuances of character and relationship. Again, we all think they should be there, but everyone has a different priority for them. We will see the ones that the screenwriters felt were essential, just as they had to decide what themes the movies were going to be about, not having time to develop them all.
Those who have not read the books won't know what they're missing. It's narrative holes that bother them, not the stuff we miss (I have a couple non-readers in my house to get reactions from). Some of them will be moved to read the books to get their answers, and then they will discover what they're missing.
And there is no such thing as loving the books too much. But the book and the movie exist in different mediums, and so each must be taken on its own terms to be enjoyed.
Silverlode