MSN.com: 'All 3 'Lord of the Rings' Movies, Ranked by 📔Book Accuracy'

[Radaghast]

Link

The Lord of the Rings is one of the most acclaimed movie trilogies of all-time, with every single installment now regarded as an all-time classic. The work of J.R.R. Tolkien has been endlessly debated, studied, and beloved by readers and fans alike for decades, and there was certainly a time in which the thought of adapting his magnum opus seemed like an impossible task. While a 1978 animated film managed to combine elements of the first two novels in the trilogy into a halfway decent adaptation, it was evident that Tolkiens most defining work deserved to be depicted as a massive epic. Peter Jackson may not have been the first name that came to mind, as his background was primarily in low-budget horror films like Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste. However, Jackson ended up being the perfect storyteller to bring the unique heroes of The Lord of the Rings saga to life.

Rather amateurish article, judging by the author's frequent failure to use apostrophes, as in the paragraph above; odd for an MSN article, imho (way to promote literacy, msn). I don't how if I have an opinion about which movie is the most book-accurate but in case anyone is curious and doesn't want to read the article, it ranks The Two Towers as the most faithful.

 

[Eldacar]

I guess the author had to meet a Deadline for just some article. It's completely bloated by adding information such as Director and Cast for every part of the trilogy, as if the reader would not know the movies. There is no explanation of what metric of accurateness is used, aside from the author's general gut feeling. Probably because there is no really meaningful way to quantify something like this. This is truly forgettable content.