Sorry... I always saw Casino Royal as a separate take on Bond... I didn't see it as bad, but I've never read the book and knowing that it was written years ago... there is no way that movie was even loosely based on it...
tracking people via cell phones? lol
Although I did love Pierce lol... but I grew up with him in the Bond movis so lol... Goldeneye is still my favourite...
As far as Lord of the Rings... I've always heard how well adapted it was by fans...
And I do have to say this as I am the Co-Admin of the largest Jurassic Park resource on the web and we have to deal with people who do this all the time:
Never.... Ever.... Compare Novel to Film.
They are two separate media. To say one is better or worse then the other is simply not possible.
It's like saying you like The Great Gate of Kiev painting more than the Modest Mussorgsky suite. To say one has more detail or less is simply not possible and blind.
Why do I say this? Because you can't compare art like that.
Look at the films... you may not like them, but they have an amazing wealth of information, artwork (because they are mostly CG) and craftsman ship from countless people... not to mention symbolism of their own and a story of their own to weave. Limited by the artform, you can only do so much and only say so much.
The Great Gate of Kiev is a rather wonderful arch. The composition, however, does not say explicitly "It's a grand, rounded arch with a great spire from the top" in any lyrics BUT musically it goes Do--- Re---- Me, Do, Me, Re, sol which is like an arch... going up and back down again... but not ever stating "It has a spire" or "it is an arch with a tower" and to cite it as being flawed or mal-formed or BAD because it doesn't is simply not taking in what it does have to offer of its own.
Tolkein's novel is a great wealth of information of another kind. The symbolism you say is lost is replaced with another... similar to what I was saying with the music not explicitly stating something but showing it another way.
Personally, I've never read the novels, but the whole 'christian undertone' argument is kind of moot.
I saw "Narnia" and it is like the exact opposite. The whole time, I was stuck comparing it to the Bible. The whole story is like if you told the new testament but changed the nouns from 'Jesus' to 'Aslan' or from the two Mary's to the two girls.
I was stuck comparing it to the Bible and I couldn't see past that and see the film for what it is. For that, I think it greatly suffered if my eyes.
It may have been a good story and a moral one and what have you, but I personally could not see past the christian underpinnings and for me, that hindered the experience. It didn't go its own way or illustrate anything so dramatically different than the Bible. It didn't stand out as being as unique as the Bible; just a knock off copy.
I saw it once and never again. I have it on DVD but I didn't bother getting the expanded one...
So to update or to modify allusions and symbolism is just the thing an 'adaptation' needs to do... To make it's own mark in a certain art-scape.
So to go its own way I feel is a good thing....