I think Tolkien's novels are kind of a special case, because of the intensity of their fan base. This is perhaps because until Peter Jackson, nobody managed to make a film or TV adaptation that anybody cared enough about to hate. Everything out there was just so obviously unable to present the source material, that fans felt sorry for the artists who tried and failed.

For me as a 13-year-old, "The Lord of the Rings" was a queer-coded epic adventure with intense male/male love at its heart.

That's why I read the three very long novels and the shorter children's story "The Hobbit" so many times while still a teenager.

And then like many admirers of Tolkien's work, I came to love his world building and the intricacy of his art, which is beyond genius level. (He invented entire languages based on his career as a philologist!)

So, when Peter Jackson came out with a work of genius of his own (the films are stunning artistic accomplishments) I was predisposed to harping and nitpicking like everybody else who loves Tolkien. How COULD you change this storyline, how COULD you leave this beloved character ou? Etc.

But when all is said and done, the Tolkien superfan in me is a bit displeased, but I'm not actually upset with the films. They remain a deeply queer-coded love story wrapped in an epic adventure. Sam and Frodo literally save the world and save the very ability to love.

Without Sam's fierce devotion to Frodo, they would have failed. Without Frodo's ability to love and accept love, the journey would have never got properly started.

But because of the intensity of their love for Tolkien's novels, lots of fans are not able to get past the decided liberties Jackson took (had to take) to make the film work as great art on their own.