Lord Of The Rings: Book VS. Movie

I love LOTR books. They are absolutly beautiful. I read the second one before the first one and the third one's my favorite.

But i didn't like it at all when they made them into the movies. The first movie was so-so and they changed it completely from the book. but the second one was HORRIBLE. I mean they drag Frodo to Gondor and Faramir was so mean. he was much nicer in the book. Plus, in the third movie they don't show Faramir and Eowyn fall in love and get married.


Anyway, what do you think? were the books better or the movies?

When you think about it, you can only do so much in the movie. The movies were long enough as they were, I don't think a lot of people would of sat through a 5 hour movie. Although I have heard that the extended version of Return of the King is supposed to be about that long. I liked the books more than I liked the movies. But the movies were great as well.

I also I didn't like how they made Faramir all mean in The Two Towers movie. That was pretty stupid.

They do HINT at Faramir and Eowyn getting together. It shows them next to eachother all happy and stuff.

The movies for me, simply because I'm too impatient to read those damn long books, and I find it easier to watch the movies. Plus the bits of the books I did read went on and on for too long, the movie gets to the point quicker. Although I expect most people who have read the books prefer them.

I fell asleep most anytime I tried to read the books. I sort of just sleepwalked through them all.

The movies kept me on the edge of my seat, and from what I remember of the books, were a pretty close interpretation.

I prefer the books over the movies because they go into so much more detail. Still, I really had problems with the dialogue in the books. I just could not imagine people saying some of the things they said without sounding completely ridiculous. But then again, the movies used a lot of Tolkien dialogue, and it seemed to work really well.

And about the Faramir changes in the second movie, I think the Extended Edition had a great portrayal of him. I did not like theatrical Faramir at all (he seemed like a big jerk for no reason), but the extended version actually gave him a valid reason for acting the way he acted (his monster of a father). After watching it, he suddenly became one of my favorite characters, instead of just a Boromir clone.

As far as the books, I dont know. Im much more of a visual person, and have not much intrest in the books, and I really enjoyed the movies. So I go with the movies... I feel like falling alseep when I read long books.

If the movie was really true to the books, it'd be a guy sitting in a chair reading the books for 15 hours. You have to change things when you make a book into a movie. The books were fine, the movies were fine, both in different ways.

People have got to understand that the films are a completely seperate existence from the books, and view them as such. The movies, as movies!, were great. The books, as books, were great (actually IMO they blew monkey balls). There's no sense in comparing them because you'll never be satisfied. They're not meant to be the same thing. If you want the book version then freaking read the book. >.<

Oi, that annoys me.

Anyway, I never really enjoyed the LotR books. I have an immense amount of respect for Tolkien and all the work he put into them, and appreciate what those books did for fantasy literature today. But sheesh were they boring. I think it's pretty odd that the movies were as identicle to the books as humanly possible, and managed to be a million times more exciting and interesting (for me). It just goes to show what over-detailing scenes will do to you...

I love both the books and movies but when it comes down to it, my heart belongs to the books. There are moments of such intense beauty in the books that can't really be translated onto the big screen and too many incredible book moments that the movies just can't match. Having said that, the movies literally changed my life and I'm ridiculously in love with them. I wrote about the movies for my personal statement when I applied to the School of Cinema-Television at USC and I'm fairly sure it was a deciding factor in my acceptance.

It was an incredible experience to actually see Rivendell and Lothlorien for the first time. It was awe-inspiring and surreal and breathtakingly beautiful. Far beyond anything that my imagination could conjure up of Middle-Earth.

But part of the reason I love the movies so much is because I love the books so much. The brief mentions of Luthien and Beren, the occasional references to chapter titles, the glimpses of Narya, being able to understand why Elrond was so bitter at the prospect of losing his daughter and knowing the full breadth of what Frodo gave up in order to destroy the ring. There's no way the movies could have affected me the way they did if I hadn't read and loved the books.

I used to be something of a purist and I had some MAJOR gripes about all three movies when they first came out, but now I'm able to watch and enjoy them for the amazing cinematic achievements that they are. Peter Jackson made the changes he had to make in order to bring the story to the big screen. Sure there were some changes that were highly unnecessary (ie: the butchering of Denethor's character, which imo was far worse than the changes to Faramir's character) but then there were other changes that worked perfectly for the movie (ie: Elves at Helm's Deep). So I guess it all balances out in the end.

The books lagged at parts but in general were better. There's only so much you can do in a movie, like 4 said.

As a fantasy writer myself, I have a great deal of respect for what Tolkien did for the genre, my preference is the style that was born from Tolkein, as opposed to the other major style, which tends to be Harry Potterish.

This being said though, I am of the firm belief that there is a certain degree of balance between description and plot advancement that should be followed. Tolkien's style is far too much in the "description" area than is the plot advancement, his book moves, to use a fantasy geek analogy, at the speed of an entish conversation.

Anyways, I found myself unable to read through Tolkien's series, it was far too tediously overdescriptive in my opinion. I am, however a great fan of the books that came from it, and I enjoyed the movies a great deal as well, so I will have to go with the movie.

I read the books before the movies, and I think the movies are better. The books were quite boring to me. *nod*

The books were great, but the last time I read them was two years before the movies came out, and I must say, when I read, I usually skip out on all the imagery and description and stuff (a bad habit I try to break) and seeing the landscapes portrayed on the screen blew my mind away.

Ian McKellen as Gandalf was excellent.

I know movies can do only so much but dragging Frodo to Gondor instead of spending the exact same amount of money on Ithilin really bugs me. Not to mention dragging Arwen all over the country-side was stupid.


I wish Ian McKellen would star as Dumbledore. Harris annoyed me.

[q=Silmaril]I know movies can do only so much but dragging Frodo to Gondor instead of spending the exact same amount of money on Ithilin really bugs me. Not to mention dragging Arwen all over the country-side was stupid.[/q]Ithilien was a short and relatively uneventful scene in the books, the movie needed to add more weight to it... plus, Osgiliath played an important role in RotK, so the scene needed to be set. Some things just can't be presented in a movie the same way they can in a book; emotions and abstract concepts are harder to create.

As for Arwen... I'm glad her role was expanded. I mean, one little action scene isn't a huge deviation; and she needed to have some screen-time in order to give any kind of meaning to the romantic sub-plot. All she did in the books was sit around looking pretty at dinner before the Council of Elrond (which she didn't even attend), and weave the banner that Aragorn raised on the hijacked Corsair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

As a fantasy writer myself, I have a great deal of respect for what Tolkien did for the genre, my preference is the style that was born from Tolkein, as opposed to the other major style, which tends to be Harry Potterish.

This being said though, I am of the firm belief that there is a certain degree of balance between description and plot advancement that should be followed. Tolkien's style is far too much in the "description" area than is the plot advancement, his book moves, to use a fantasy geek analogy, at the speed of an entish conversation.

Anyways, I found myself unable to read through Tolkien's series, it was far too tediously overdescriptive in my opinion. I am, however a great fan of the books that came from it, and I enjoyed the movies a great deal as well, so I will have to go with the movie.

---

I don't think I could have said it better. Tolkien's ideas are great, but he just doesn't have a practical method of execution. I'm also a fantasy writer, and I respect Tolkien despite the fact that I don't like his works.

I base my writings more on ancient tales such as the Nibelungenlied and the many myths of the ancient Greeks rather than on his style, although that probably is where his style came from as well. In fact, it is believed that Tolkien got his ring idea from the Nibelungenlied. Or so I hear.

The movies were good. They weren't great, but they were good. There was a little too much fighting and not enough story in the second and third movies, but they were still much better than the books.

I read the books when I was twelve and I didn't mind the long descriptions at all. It game me a better sense of the world Tolkien intended on his readers to depict in their minds. The books had some parts that weren't strictly necessary (such as (SPOILER)the hobbits meeting Tom Bomadil, meeting Farmer Maggot, and going through the Barrow-Downs en route to Bree.) that the movie left out, which was a good thing even if I am rather purist when it comes to book-movie translations. What I didn't like was PJ doing little tweaks to the plot, such as (SPOILER)Faramir trying to take Frodo and Sam to Gondor, and Gullom framing Sam over the Lambas breadm thus making Frodo cast him away, but I could live with that. The Movies were awesome, but the books are timeless. Both are good in their own ways

When your adapting a book into a movie the main thing that you have to understand is that what works on paper doesn't always work well on film. Books have a core meaning to them and that is what is used or what should be used in the re-telling of them as a Motion Picture. Plotlines don't always stay the same but by the end of a book-to-movie adaptation you should come out knowing the meaning of that story even if you've gone a different route (in the movie than the book) to get their. And that's what The Lord of the Rings Trilogy did. It didn't always stay entirely true to the book but it told the same story that Tolkien first told over 30 or so odd years ago. And that's what counts, plus it didn't hurt that they were awesome movies in themselves.

I've been an LOTR books fan years before the movies were made, so I am inclined to prefer the books.

By choosing, though, know that I understand people's views on how books are books and movies and movies, that they are different. Still, movies based on books are an attempt to tell the same story, on a different medium. Faced by a question on what my preference would be between the two choices, I am to interpret it as a choice as to which medium told the tale better or presented it better for the entertainment of me.

So I choose the books, for I have enjoyed them much more than I did the movies. Of course, i think the movies were great, and I suppose they will go on to be my all-time favorite films. :)

I suppose your right whether the film and book end up telling the same story doesn't matter in the end it comes down to the person and their preference over which medium they felt told it the best.