book and movie

The books have more detail about the culture of Middle-Earth and poems and songs in them, which were not in the movie. Events occur differently in the books than in the movie and there are characters that you didn't get to see at all that were in the book but not in the movie.

Hmm, one is a book, so you have to read it, the other one's a film, so you have to see it :-) Apart from that: there's lot more in the books, and then there's some scenes in the films that aren't in the books. Elves at Helm's deep, cascading sculls and Eowyn's cooking for example, those are not in the book. Then there's the landscape, the trees in the book are English, the trees in the films aren't, but you'd probably not notice that if you're not into trees. There's no Tom Bombadil and no fox, I think the fox should have been in the films. The Olympic Games at Lillehammer managed, so I think Peter Jackson could have found one too :-)

There was a lot cut out of the book to make the film, especially at the start of The Fellowship of the Ring where, amongst other things, the Old Forest and Barrow Downs were missed out, and at the end of the Return of the King, where the Scouring of the Shire was omitted. Arwen's part was also substantially increased. If the film had not had so much omitted though, it would probably have been twice as long.