I love the books and I'm very much a book purist when it comes to LOTR, so while I found a lot to enjoy in the movies, all the alterations irked me. And there are a ton of changes, far more than can be explained away by adaptation from one medium to another.JediTricks wrote:IMO, that's not fair, the LOTR movies are the first live-action adaptation, it's not a reboot of a franchise since LOTR wasn't a franchise anyway. I didn't care for the books, which nearly cost me viewing the movies, but once I did, I was hooked.andersonh1 wrote:That's the same type of attitude that galled me with Lord of the Rings. They loved the book so much they wanted to make a movie out of it... but then they go and change a ton of details. At least with Doctor Who, the format of the show allows for constant reinvention without it looking like a reboot.
But my point with that was that when I listen to the DVD commentaries and watch the documentaries, the director and script writers talk about how much they love the books and how much of a genius that Tolkien is, etc. Then they rewrite half the book when adapting it to the screen. Legolas becomes the KeWl action hero, for example, while Gimli becomes the comic relief character, spouting jokes every other line and looking like a goof.
If the source material is so wonderful, why change so much of it? That's my point.
With Doctor Who, thankfully constant change of cast is a regular feature of the show, so whenever a new Doctor or companion is introduced, it's not jarring. And continuity with older episodes is loosely maintained, so while discrepancies occur, it's not a big deal. We've managed to avoid the total reboot so far.