Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/6/2004 6:46:40 PM EST
After having just finished the LOTR books for the fourth time, I've come to the conclusion that the movies are actually better than the books, especially the extended editions. I like the idea of Aragorn as the reluctant king, among many other of the choices that he made. I was put off by how he played Faramir, but I think I've come to terms with it and actually kind of prefer it now. I had some issues with the third movie with the lack of Saruman and no Mouth of Sauron, but I think both of those will be revived in the extended edition. The movies are simply incredible. Don't get me totally wrong, I liked the books a lot, but I think the movies are better.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 6:53:30 PM EST
No way.

They ARE great movies, but you can't beat the books.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was better than the book is was based off of.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:06:06 PM EST
you are either:

1. high.

2. encumbered with a worthless imagination.

the book trumps the movie every time, unless it's just that crappy of a book.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:08:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Ratters:
After having just finished the LOTR books for the fourth time, I've come to the conclusion that the movies are actually better than the books...



Impossible! Anyone who thinks that the LOTR movies are better than the books would only have cognative ability equal to that of a refrigarator magnet, and that person would therefore be incapable of drawing conclusions.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:10:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Ratters:
After having just finished the LOTR books for the fourth time, I've come to the conclusion that the movies are actually better than the books, especially the extended editions. I like the idea of Aragorn as the reluctant king, among many other of the choices that he made. I was put off by how he played Faramir, but I think I've come to terms with it and actually kind of prefer it now. I had some issues with the third movie with the lack of Saruman and no Mouth of Sauron, but I think both of those will be revived in the extended edition. The movies are simply incredible. Don't get me totally wrong, I liked the books a lot, but I think the movies are better.



I disagree.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:10:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 7:10:53 PM EST by DK-Prof]
You're insane.

If I had a voodoo doll of you, I'd hit it in the groin with a claw hammer!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:20:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
You're insane.

If I had a voodoo doll of you, I'd hit it in the groin with a claw hammer!



but really, how do you honestly feel?

The movies were a great adaption of the books, probably the best adaption I have seen of a book, but....... the books were soooo much better.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:22:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Atencio:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
You're insane.

If I had a voodoo doll of you, I'd hit it in the groin with a claw hammer!



but really, how do you honestly feel?

The movies were a great adaption of the books, probably the best adaption I have seen of a book, but....... the books were soooo much better.



I guess I forgot the smiley

I totally agree that the movies are amazing adapatations of the books (and some of the best filsm I've EVER seen) - I just don't think they're better than the books.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:33:32 PM EST
Respectfully sir, you are high.

There is NO FIGGIN' WAY the movies are better than the books that Tolkien spent most of his life writing.

Just the depth of the languages alone would make the books better, but the details that NO movie can adequately capture make them better.

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:34:36 PM EST


I don't have a chance to read the book yet, but I'm almost 100% sure that the book is better.
In most cases, the book gives a lot of details that the movie can't. It also allows your imagination to take over in certain areas when reading it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:12:21 PM EST
Instead of a long long looooooooong rant on how utterly wrong you are Ratters, I will defer to the professorial comment of DKprof, and hand him a large forged head framing hammer for the honors.


Good movies. Not great. Good. Very watchable. But they are a fat little NZ guys version of THE masterpiece of 20th century fantasy literature, btw, I recommend his wife and the other broad be executed for the absolute garbage they substituted for dialogue from the book itself. Unutterable excrement. Period.


Not even close to the scope and depth of what JRR created. Not at all.


I will leave off before this gives me an aneurism.

Dram

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:16:07 PM EST
Man the books where way, way better!! j/k
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:47:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:38:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:26:33 PM EST
Jackson left way too much out of the films.

Then again, if the movies were made the way they should be, the entire series would last about 100 hours.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:32:36 PM EST
The movies were better. For one thing, I didn't have to waste hours of my life reading geek-literature and emersing myself in some magical kingdom, which inevitably leads people to join Ren-fairs and buy cheap swords.

I sat there, watched, soaked in a good story and got on with my life. Movie wins.

Sorry nerds. I know this is like pissing on your grandma's pancakes, but the truth hurts sometimes.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:35:15 PM EST
Both put me to sleep. In the one film where all the Orges showed I was about ready to throw an AR15 at the fucking hobbit just to get the movie over with. SHit dragged on forever!

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:42:29 AM EST
You must not have the imagination necessary to actually enjoy literature of any kind.

Either that or your on crack.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:48:04 AM EST
I made the mistake of watching the films first. I'm not a big fiction reader, so I was never into Tolkien. But the films drew me to the books and I'm finding that the films actually ruin the books for me.

I constantly find that I'm envisioning Elijah Wood as Frodo and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn. Neither are what I would call accurate depictions of Frodo and Aragorn. At least not in my mind's eye. Maybe Mortensen, but definitely not Wood.

In the end, I guess it helps to just think of the films as Peter Jackson's vision of Tolkien's book. For in the end that is all they are. The true film of LOTR is in the mind of those who read Tolkien's wonderful tome.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 1:49:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 1:50:08 AM EST by 2IDdoc]

Originally Posted By swingset:
The movies were better. For one thing, I didn't have to waste hours of my life reading geek-literature and emersing myself in some magical kingdom, which inevitably leads people to join Ren-fairs and buy cheap swords.

I sat there, watched, soaked in a good story and got on with my life. Movie wins.

Sorry nerds. I know this is like pissing on your grandma's pancakes, but the truth hurts sometimes.





Yeah, reading a work of literary genius is such a waste of time. You must be really really cool. Especially if you don't read. I'm sure you lead a very intellectually stimulating existence.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 2:11:45 AM EST
I agree with Ratters. The books are indeed classics, but I too prefer the movies. The book Aragorn was too distant, too obsessed a character for my tastes. The movie makes him more approachable.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 2:16:15 AM EST
Ha!

For one thing, the movie gives very short shrift to Tolkein's efforts to create artificial languages. There is very little means or opportunity to deal with this issue; CGI just won't do it. Some academics have stated that his creation of "elvish" is one of the most sophisticated efforts in artificial languages since the invention of Esperanto.

All things can be judged by the amount of time spent dealing with them. By the end of each of the movies, you have invested about three hours of your life. The book takes (it is actually a novel in six parts) much longer, and you can cull so much more from them.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 2:23:13 AM EST
Have to go with the flow on this one, the books were much much better but that's typical with a good book. When I'm really impressed is when they take a piece of shit book and make a good movie out of it.

Still the movies are great.

Tj
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:17:52 AM EST
Bunk.

Get back on the meds.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:25:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Amicus:All things can be judged by the amount of time spent dealing with them. quote]


Yeah right, you should sit down and calculate the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000­,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th digit of PI by hand. When you're done get back to us and tell us how it was more enjoyable than reading the LOTR books because it took longer.

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:30:12 AM EST
The movie scripts made changes that altered many important things, some of them were brought up here such as Aragorn being a reluctant heir to Gondor and Faramir's character. Faramir in the book was more like the kings of old, brave, compassionate and well educated in history. He understood the power of the Ring and aided Frodo, never did he want to take it even were it offered to him, he certainly didn't bring Frodo and Sam to Gondor.
The movie also made Theoden a coward king that got pushed into action. The Elves never came to Helms Deep to help and the men defending it were not that outnumbered (300 vs. 100K in the movie?)
All these were unnecessary and changed the movie quite a bit. The book makes frequent mentions of places and names that it doesn't go in details, for that you should read The Silmarillion, then everything will make sense, e.g. the Elves plight, the origin of Sauron, of all things good and evil in Middle Earth.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:36:19 AM EST
Question: Have you watched them 4 times?

You said you've read them 4 times.

That's the way I feel about them. Great movies but doubt I'll watch them as many times as I'd read the books.

OTOH, I'd watch 2001 Space Odyssey again and never read the book.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:36:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By HKocher:
No way.

They ARE great movies, but you can't beat the books.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was better than the book is was based off of.



Ditto
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:58:23 AM EST
I think Jackson should have payed more attention to the meat of the books instead of the appendix.
Making LOTR into a love story is the worst thing I could have imagined. I still like the movies and am looking forward to the release of the extended version of the 3rd. The books are way better tho.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 5:59:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Both put me to sleep. In the one film where all the Orges showed I was about ready to throw an AR15 at the fucking hobbit just to get the movie over with. SHit dragged on forever!

Sgtar15



What movie are you talking about?

And wouldn't an AR15 be more effective if it were fired? I don't own one yet, so I can't be entirely sure...

(Orcs, I think you meant.)

Ways the movie series was better than the book:
1. Millions more people watched the movie than read the book, so at least they go some idea of the story.

Ways the book is better than the movie series:
1. The characters can be developed far more thoroughly.
2. The book didn't need to have any distractions comic relief.
3. The book could draw on the internal history of Middle-Earth (thus making the story much richer), and explain such history where needed. Aragon's little song near the end of Return of the King is included, translated, and (in the Appendix, I think) explained. To everyone who didn't read the book, it's just musical gibberish.
4. The Faramir/Eowyn secondary love story is presented, and Faramir is shown to be a VERY different man than his brother Boromir. (BTW, in the book, Faramir nobly rejects the Ring and treats Sam and Frodo with much more kindness and courtesy.)
5. I can use my own ideas of what Ultimate Elven Beauty is. Sorry, but Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett just don't "string my bow" the way they're described in the books.* Eomer and Gimli were ready to duel after Eomer "dissed" Galadriel.
6. The book included a great "Check your weapons at the door, punk" scene.

etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I am a nerd.
Yes, I have read the book.
Yes, I have read The Silmarillion, too. Sam makes a direct reference to one of the main stories in there (the tale of Beren and Luthien, who recovered a certain jewel from Sauron's boss.)

I would have cast (thinking who's current, since my tastes are a little out-of-date - Lynda Carter might not be the best choice as an immortal Elven maiden)

Angie Harmon as Arwen
Gwyneth Paltrow as Galadriel
(Miranda Otto was adequate for Eowyn)
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:39:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
The movies were better. For one thing, I didn't have to waste hours of my life reading geek-literature and emersing myself in some magical kingdom, which inevitably leads people to join Ren-fairs and buy cheap swords.

I sat there, watched, soaked in a good story and got on with my life. Movie wins.

Sorry nerds. I know this is like pissing on your grandma's pancakes, but the truth hurts sometimes.



What a retarded argument. If you haven't even read the books yet, how can you claim the movies are better?

If you're too much of a rube to take the time to READ literature I suppose it would be more enjoyable to watch moving pictures dance around on a TV screen.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:49:47 AM EST
I didn't read the books until I heard that the movie was coming out, the summer before. I loved the books, not being much of a "Trek-ie" or fantasy book/movie fan, I was surprised at how quickly I read through the trilogy (and the hobbit).

It was great seeing the movies afterwards and seeing what I saw in my head, on the silver screen (for the most part). However I will have to agree, no disrespect to Peter Jackson, the books were better for me since they contained much more explanation and background of things that were happenind... For instance, where the hell did the hobbits get "bill" in the first book/movie? All of a sudden, when they reach moria, Sam is all distraught about letting Bill go... WTF did Bill come from? Just one small example.

But the Movies are Awesome by themselves, but not comparable to the books. My $.02
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 7:54:05 AM EST
You guys that think the movies were better should probably keep your opinions to yourselves. After all, the insane cannot legally possess firearms.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:42:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Question: Have you watched them 4 times?

You said you've read them 4 times.

That's the way I feel about them. Great movies but doubt I'll watch them as many times as I'd read the books.



I've read the books more times than I've seen the movies...but the books had a two decade headstart in my case. I have already seen FOTR well over 20 times and The Two Towers about a dozen times. When ROTK comes out on DVD, I will start working on my fourth time seeing it.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:49:29 AM EST
They did an incredible job with the movies but they just can't bring you the completeness to the story that you will get with the book. Things such as the background and the aftermath for the main characters could never be effectively covered on film and is essential to bringing a proper closure to the entire story.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:10:33 AM EST
I love the movies, absolutely think they were great. But they don't come close to the books, which I first read 25 years ago, and have read a dozen times since.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:32:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:
You guys that think the movies were better should probably keep your opinions to yourselves. After all, the insane cannot legally possess firearms.



Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:48:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:49:46 AM EST by HardShell]

Originally Posted By HKocher:
...I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was better than the book is was based off of.



I would submit that the Harry Potter movies are better (so far) than the books (or at least the first one - I haven't touched any of the other books). I say this because I tried to read the first book & couldn't shake the feeling that it was written for someone a quarter of my age (which it was). On the other hand, I took my niece & nephew to see the first two movies and I thought they were very well-done & enjoyable for all ages.

Okay, I've admittedly just made an argument that the movies were better suited to a broader audience, arguably different than just saying they are "better"... <shrug> Oh, well...


ETA: In all honesty, I would have to agree that your statement above probably applies 99%+ of the time...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:50:37 AM EST
Californians...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:28:55 AM EST
Ok, I gotta get in this one.
This would be a much better argument if we were discussing ANY other movie v. the book. LOTR, the movie, has been recognized as one of the best movies of all time.
On the other hand, The book is not so much recognized for being great literature, but as an icon of the times.
In other words, LOTR is more than just a good book. When you criticize it, people don't react rationally.
BTW, I agree completely with the writer who said he'd see 2001 again over rereading the book. I THINK the book was a novelization of the movie, which was in turn an adaptation of a Clarke short story.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:52:02 AM EST
Duffy,

You hit the nail on the head for me completely.

The movie scripts made changes that altered many important things, some of them were brought up here such as Aragorn being a reluctant heir to Gondor and Faramir's character. Faramir in the book was more like the kings of old, brave, compassionate and well educated in history. He understood the power of the Ring and aided Frodo, never did he want to take it even were it offered to him, he certainly didn't bring Frodo and Sam to Gondor.
The movie also made Theoden a coward king that got pushed into action. The Elves never came to Helms Deep to help and the men defending it were not that outnumbered (300 vs. 100K in the movie?)
All these were unnecessary and changed the movie quite a bit. The book makes frequent mentions of places and names that it doesn't go in details, for that you should read The Silmarillion, then everything will make sense, e.g. the Elves plight, the origin of Sauron, of all things good and evil in Middle Earth.


Could not have said it better myself. Phillipa Boyens and the other jackass scriptwriter should be strung up by their dangling participles and beaten with a dogeared copy of the appendix.

They made a love story. A story about failed man. Weak men. Gutless men. Stuuuupid men.

Tolkien wrote a story about heroes who were REAL MEN and TRUE. Straight as an arrow, tough as steel. There were wimps and devious cunning men, but there were also heroes from the days of old. Aragorn was the last and greatest in the line of these men and those three assholes (forgive my language) who wrote the script, turned him into a sniveling doubter, not the high and lordly man of high lineage who he was. ARRRRRRRRGH! That alone is the worst sin of this film!!!!!

Jackasson and his cohorts corrupted the vision of Tolkien into a modern day melodrama just to sell it to the gay mafia of hollywood and get the money to make the movie.


I could go on ad nauseum.... but I must stop here.

Dram out
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:58:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
All these were unnecessary and changed the movie quite a bit.

They made a love story. A story about failed man. Weak men. Gutless men. Stuuuupid men.



Yep, changes for marketability. where's that damn archive server.....
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:16:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
All these were unnecessary



That's your opinion. I disagree.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 1:54:48 PM EST
Gee rik, you disagree with me about this subject

What an absolute shock that is

How bout' this, lets just ignore eachothers posts and leave it at that eh? Makes life so much more pleasant. Ummmmkay?

Dram out
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 2:16:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Gee rik, you disagree with me about this subject

What an absolute shock that is

How bout' this, lets just ignore eachothers posts and leave it at that eh? Makes life so much more pleasant. Ummmmkay?



No. I don't agree with you, and neither do the incredible preponderance of people out there. Feel free to have any opinion you want and to speak it to your heart's content...just don't assume everyone else agrees with you, or that you're correct.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 3:22:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By HardShell:

Originally Posted By HKocher:
...I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was better than the book is was based off of.



I would submit that the Harry Potter movies are better (so far) than the books (or at least the first one - I haven't touched any of the other books). I say this because I tried to read the first book & couldn't shake the feeling that it was written for someone a quarter of my age (which it was). On the other hand, I took my niece & nephew to see the first two movies and I thought they were very well-done & enjoyable for all ages.

Okay, I've admittedly just made an argument that the movies were better suited to a broader audience, arguably different than just saying they are "better"... <shrug> Oh, well...


ETA: In all honesty, I would have to agree that your statement above probably applies 99%+ of the time...



You may be right due to the fact the books are 5th-6th grade reading level with the last one a 7th grade level. The first movie was a good remake but the first book did not have a lot of depth to worry about. It will be interesting to see if this changes because the books do get a little more substance to them starting with the third one.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 3:24:33 AM EST
Movies are always compromises of the printed version. I prefer the books.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:34:35 AM EST
I tell people who never read the books to watch the movie and enjoy it, than go read the books and understand it.

It is a very deep book and if Hollywierd made the movie to match the book FotR would be 6 hours alone! We would be talking about 18 hours for all three movies.

Given that movie goers "generally" like a 2hr movie I think they made a darn good comprise.
I think the books are better because they are deeper, however the entertainment value of the movies surpass the book.
Seeing the Balrog on screen made my minds-eye version look like a poodle.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:26:30 AM EST
rik,

If I were to wish to be like the rest of the world, I too would be like you. But I am not. Mix with the crowd you wish to mix and have yourself a ball.

Am I right in my opinions? As far as is humanly possible to correctly divine the intent of the makers of the films from THEIR OWN INTERVIEWS, why yes, I am seriously correct. To a shaved decimal point. I have done my research and followed the movies making since their inception. Relentlessly.

If you have gone over the top in your enjoyment of the films as I have with the books, why then bully for you laddie. That is where our paths, disparate as they are, shall once again, fail to meet. Big shock, eh?

So, for your daily intake of wisdom, I suggest the following..... you assume about others more than you should. Do some research instead of issuing you jovian statements. I do research and issue my commentary, and if I do not choose to footnote it as if it were a dissertation, why then that is surely my own choice.

I have a thoroughly wonderful imagination, and respect for the INTENT of the author. ONE of which the maker of the movie has, one he has NOT. Now can you guess which it is rik? C..a..n y..o..u..?

For me it is all about non-deviation from the INTENT of the books. Very fun movies, but they lack almost ALL of the books INTENT.

Can you tell us rik, what was the INTENT of professor Tolkien?

Through painstaking and intense research over two decades, I surely can. I have my doubts about your ability though. Care to take a shot, sir?

Dram out
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 5:28:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
rik,

If I were to wish to be like the rest of the world, I too would be like you. But I am not. Mix with the crowd you wish to mix and have yourself a ball.



My, what an idiotic statement. And meaningless.



Am I right in my opinions?



No.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 5:46:31 PM EST
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think J.R.R. Tolkien would have enjoyed the movies.

Vulcan94
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top