People always refer to the Lord of the Rings as a trilogy, but it's not. Look at each of the three volumes, each has two books, labelled as such. It suppose that makes it a sextology, but since that word would undoubtedly get misunderstood, perhaps double trilogy would be the best thing to call it.

And ideally they'd have done this first film just with the first book, up to the arrival at Rivendell. That would have meant a more leisurely approach, with more room for the gentle bits and the discussion as and the songs in between the fighting and the frightening stuff, which I take it is what Clinton means by "all the highlights of the tale".

The thing is, the very stuff that some people see as redundant and boring is for other people the main course. It's big enough for both types of readers.

The film doesn't in any way replace the book, it reinforces it. Changing the story so that it fits what the director sees as necessary for the different nedium is OK, so long as it's done with real understanding, and in this case it was. Some changes I'd disagree with, some I'd see as necessary but a pity, some I'd even see as improvements.

Tolkien's book isn't Holy Writ. But it is a very good book, and it's idiosyncrasies and even it's flaws are inseparable parts of it.

Tolkien wrote a fascinating essay (well, it started as a lecture) "On Fairy Stories", and it's normally bound in with "Leaf by Niggle", and sometimes with other works. There doesn't seem to be a copy of it on the net that I could find - but here are some relevant extracts, under the heading "What would Tolkien think of the upcoming Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy?" on a website about such things which Google threw up when I went looking for the essay.