I have to disagree, mihosama... While I don't necessarily like it, I do understand why they leave out sections of books. Think about how long the LotR movies were, and then think about how long they would have been if every little bit had been included. There would have had to be at least half an hour dedicated to Tom Bombadil alone! And, even though he's my absolute favorite character, he doesn't contribute anything to the plot. It made perfect sense from a filmmaker's standpoint to cut that section.

The scriptwriter's job is to stay as true to the book as possible while still making something that will make sense to people who haven't read the book... and to convey the entire book in less than four hours, because the average audience won't sit through a six-hour movie-- much less multiple six hour movies, if we're talking a series. I'm not saying they always do that job well, mind, but that's the intention.

There's also the fact that the purpose of a movie is to make money, so they run the movie by test audiences before it's released. Lots of books have endings that don't go well with the test audience, and a studio can't scrap a film they've already sunk millions into just to stay true to the book when all they have to do is film a new ending. A movie can't convey emotions and subtle plots the same way a book can-- it's impossible-- so the movie can't prepare you for an ending the way a book can.

I guess what I'm saying in a long winded way is that although I agree movies should be as close as possible to books, you have to think about the things that go into turning the written word into a visual experience. The only way you can enjoy a movie if you've already read the book is to come at it with a mind open to the adaptations that had to be made. Sometimes the movie will still disappoint you, but if you nitpick every change instead of looking at the movie as a separate thing from the book, you'll always be disappointed.