Originally Posted by ghost8772
Actually Lord of the rings was fairly closely adapted to the books, some events changed timing, and a couple things were left completely out. the only real gripe I had was they left out the part about Sharkey. though I'd guess they would have had to add about 45 minutes to an already hugely long movie. most off the Hobbits adventures getting to Rivendell were skipped completely. but under the heading of "kept close enough to the book for it to be believed it CAME from the book" about a 9.
Yes I first compare a movie to how it followed the book it was named after, then will check it for its own merits. Guess being a reader first makes me want to see if the person running the movie felt the same way I did about the book.
Yes, a good movie, but several gripes:
Elrond (Weaving got him completely wrong), Aragorn as a reluctant king (not so in the book, really changed the tenor of his story line), Arwen instead of Glorfindel the elf lord in the Flight to the Ford, Frodo (much stronger and way less whinging in the book), Faramir (directed very badly). Mind you, for a project that size, those are minor complaints. I too missed Sharky and the Scouring of the Shire, but that would have added at least 45 minutes. Really needed four movies, not three, to make them more watchable.
The book is always better. Period.