I'm NOT Nitpicky... I'm Simply Accurate

Geeze, some days I really get slammed. I mean, I like accuracy, regardless of the area of life it falls into. The past few years I have been rather upset over the liberties that film makers take with certain movies (the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance, or more lately, X3), but when I voice such concerns I seem to be drowned out by the chorus of my friends who tell me that they "separate the book from the movie" and can "appreciate the director's interpretation" (or some similar drivel). They seem to think I don't understand how art is supposed to work. Well trust me, I understand, but what I understand (and care more about) is truth and accuracy. It is one thing to alter settings, switch around minor characters, mix dialogue, but it another to create a different story and try to pass it off as something that has a history. When I evaluate movies based on literature that I know, I have two simple criteria:

1. After seeing the movie, can you tell me a reasonable accurate summary that does justice to the primary source?
2. Do the characters portrayed on screen do things consistent with how the character in the text might do them given the same situation (see, I am flexible... they don't have to do exactly the same things, just act consistently with the character of the person in the text)

Now I can argue details, but for most people that isn't fun, but there are certain things that are just not right happening in movies today that really bother me. Here are a couple of "for instance" situations:

In the first LOTR movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, they have Arwen taking the injured Frodo to Rivendell while the book says it was Glorfindel. Fair enough, I can live with that (Story: "Important elf takes injured Frodo to Rivedell to heal", which is what happened). What I detest is the line they make her say, something NO TOLKIEN ELF would utter: "If you want him, come and claim him." ARGH! No, no, no. This is completely out of character for an elf in Middle Earth. Now, jump to X3, out this year. ******* MOVIE SPOILER ******** There is no way Wolverine would kill Phoenix. In fact, in the Dark Phoenix saga, he does have a chance to and he pulls his claws at the last minute. In a later conversation where the terror of Dark Phoenix (which actually isn't developed in the movie, it just appears), Wolverine pulls a "fast ball special" with Colossus and hurls Colossus at Dark Phoenix to kill her, Wolverine TELLS COLOSSUS HE (Wolverine) CANNOT KILL HER, that he had his chance and just couldn't do it so it was up to Colossus. And yet, what do they do in the movie??? Wrong, wrong, wrong! I can live with certain alterations, the problem of time and the need to compress and blend, but I just cannot stand it when they change the character. It would be impossible for anyone to tell me the basics of the Dark Phoenix saga from watching X3. And by the way, what's up with the bridge scene? Yeah, it looked cool, but there are so many ways for Magneto to have taken down the building and taken out the guards. Sheesh!

Anyway, I hope that this rambling makes sense. I can appreciate artistic license as much as anyone else, but just like with a driver's license or a gun license, that does not mean you can do just any old thing you want!