Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: What do you like better, the book or the movie???

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > General Discussion > What do you like better, the book or the movie???   << [1] [2]
Um... yes!
I love your purple wings. Are you flying my way?
i agree with everything az and ladyfe just said,mainly because ive always thought self improvement was a good thing,and lets face it reading is more helpful to ur mind(unless like me u lost urs)and if it werent fer the books i cudnt get people to leave me alone by speaking Elvish A! Elbereth Gilthoniel! i no that wont work on yall but its fun 2 say,Tolkien is the master of writing,i as a fellow writer bow my head and weep in shame for his greatness,but PJ did at least make LOTR a name every1 knows,but thanks 2 him i cant get my idea of the characters' proper image when i read the books! (does any1 but me think i type like a split personality cause im startin 2 scare myself?)
I thought you were. You seem like a split personality to me. Of whom, is the question. You speak elvish mighty fine, my lad. Excellent pronounciation and all. Do any of you speak another language?
but i dont think im a split personality i just think i change my mind alot,i dont refer to myself as we and i dont change my name or blood type with my mood fer no reason
Well, we do think you are an alter ego. But the two of you are nice people, worry not. About the mood changes, are you sure you donīt change your blood type? Do you remember being sooo angry at someone? Almost hating her or him? Well, if you donīt its because your calmed self is active right now. Trust us, we know.
Well, this thread topic has certainly changed!

Quote:
I HATE the movies.....I LOVE the books! J.R.R. Tolkien RULES!!!! All hail to our old master!


Couldn't've said it better.
The movies are just a pale shadow of the delicate beauty and wonder that the books have-they are like the shell of a turtle in some ways-they show the form of the creation, but are not the creation in its entirety. The movies are not verbatum to the books, but if they were, they'd be eight hours long instead of 3+. And still the heart of the stories could not be captured properly.

That said, the books are better, if only for being pure in form.
i attempted to be like tolkien 1nce fer the love of somethin never try anythin that hard!ALL HAIL TOLKIEN! a person who i wud never talk if it hadnt been fer
Pleace take a look at these very important news. Ar-edain I would like you to take a look at nr 7 on this list.
(Do not comment the content of this link in this thread.)

Ar-edian, what do you mean you tired to be like Tolkien? It looks like you have posted befor you were done writing. "If it had no been for...??" Elf Confused Smilie
The movies are better because they have real people doing things that, otherwise, could not be believable. You see that the wars are really cruel and violent. That the journey is in fact long and tiresome. Actors doing those jumps and tumbles make me Believe that those things in the book are possible and concrete. I think that actor... Orlando Bloom I think, had to go through excesive amounts of training to get on the horse the way he does in The Two Towers. The book canīt show you that.
It has been close to 15 years since I last read the TLOR and about 4 or 5 since had gone over The Silmarallion a 2nd time. Now I do not think that either the films nor the books are perfect but to me they the closest things that come to it. Many film makers continue making films that should not have been touched since the original. But thanks to the allmighty dollar they need to go back and reassert their hubris.

PJ started with a very good story and shaved it into something that not only fans wanted to see but the average Joe couls sit through. No it was not the perfect representation of the books but it is about as close as you are going to be able to get to it in any film form. There are several parts of the film that that I think that he may have taken to many liberties with but the end product was worth it.

Now the books themselves have parts that could probly be taken out but the man did mork on these novels for a large part of his life. He would make stories that just needed to be palced into the book no matter how little sence it made. But again the end product is what mattered, a story of freindship, hardship and duty. In some ways it would be great if people could live by the morals represented in the fellowship as opposed as so many people today go by the morals of those shown in Angband, Isengard and Barad-Dur.

Moderator Smilie Nice post Gothmog, and please pardon my intrusion. I merely broke up the text to make your post a little easier for everyone to read. Elfstone Moderator Smilie
Quote:
The movies are better because they have real people doing things that, otherwise, could not be believable. You see that the wars are really cruel and violent. That the journey is in fact long and tiresome. Actors doing those jumps and tumbles make me Believe that those things in the book are possible and concrete. I think that actor... Orlando Bloom I think, had to go through excesive amounts of training to get on the horse the way he does in The Two Towers. The book canīt show you that.


yes it can, just close your eyes and use your imagination........ (and lego mounting that horse like that is still just silly and/or stupid!!

nuff said, love the book!

cya

(Grondy only changed the underlined text to a quote.)
I've got to agree about Legalos mounting the horse it was pretty lame.
And l have to say that it wasn't Orlando Bloom, but a stunt double. And yes it was lame, for why should an Elf shoot one single arrow at an Orc and then jumps at the back of a horse!? That doesn't make sense, he could better stay there and shoot more Orcs!

Oh yeah, l like the books better. Smile Smilie
I don't even think it was a stunt double, I think it was CGI. And Yeah! Why did he get on the horse he is better at distance attacks not close quarter melee. Even though in the movies they always have him doing these incredible stunts. The more I think about it you can really tell which character is PJs' favorite.
Quote:
I don't even think it was a stunt double, I think it was CGI.


That particular scene with Legolas was most definitely CGI! Elf Smilie
I wonder if they put those silly "Legolas breaks laws of physics while getting on animals backs" simply because Orli couldn't ride and Legolas was suppose to ride without any saddle or anything. So to show the elves wonderful way with animals they had him do that instead... (I am just desperatly trying to find some reason for those really odd stunts...)
Quote:
The movies are better because they have real people doing things that, otherwise, could not be believable. You see that the wars are really cruel and violent. That the journey is in fact long and tiresome.


Someone needs to read TLOTR again.

They could be believable. Let's see now. How many people were killed in WWII? We believe that, don't we? Why are wars called wars? Because they are more bloodthirsty and prolonged than battles! i think you need to ask a Social Studies teacher about what war is like. Either that or watch 'Saving Private Ryan.' You need only watch the start of it.
Let's see. Long journeys are tiresome when you're sitting still on a train, for goodness sake! Of course you could believe they would be even more tiresome on your own feet!

Quote:
Actors doing those jumps and tumbles make me Believe that those things in the book are possible and concrete.


What things? They certainly didn't make me believe. Because the jumps and tumbles were NOT in the book! *rant! rave!*

Quote:
I think that actor... Orlando Bloom I think, had to go through excesive amounts of training to get on the horse the way he does in The Two Towers. The book canīt show you that.


Orlando Bloom had two people there. One to grab him and pull him up, and one to take hold of him and set him on the horse. I saw them before they were whited out. There's a hilarious blooper of it going wrong! Domino effect! I could not ever believe that an elf would or could do that. How silly! And you can't jump sideways and jump without touching the ground unless you tugged on the reins extremely hard and hurt the horses mouth and probably pulled it to the ground, and maybe even seriously injured it.
And why can't the book show you that? Because IT WASN'T STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY!!!!!

Quote:
yes it can, just close your eyes and use your imagination........ (and lego mounting that horse like that is still just silly and/or stupid!!


Couldn't agree more.
thanks fer pointing those things out amarie (finishing last post)......Tolkien
movies and book are different...the book is alway the best , ... but the movies are really really beautiful!!!!
I could never place the movies anywhere near the books, in terms of content, interest level, nor sheer love of the experience. Having said that, however, I believe the movies were excellently done, given the undertaking PJ chose to attempt. There are too many fundamental differences, too many items and concepts skipped or altered due to the nature of film and its inevitable confinements, and far too much shifting of attention from where JRRT wanted it to where PJ wanted it. For that reason, I choose to consider the books and the movies as two separate artistic endeavours.

Tolkien's books - for me at least, and I will guess for many of his fans - create a world we can escape to for awhile and have grown to love over the years. In the 30+ years I have been enjoying Tolkien, I learn something new or find a new interpretation each time I read. Every time I open one of the HOME books, I find myself reading something that I skipped over the previous time(s), and usually it winds up pulling that light string in my brain, adding new understanding to things I thought I already knew. That's why I never tire of picking them up, and never will.

Jackson's movies simply put a visual aspect to the books, although that vision is limited. I was fortunate enough to see Ralph Bakshi's cartoon version of LOTR in its theater debut, when they picked a smattering of theaters across the country (mostly on college campuses) in which to show it. Yes, the movie was dark, and often difficult to follow, but it was the first time anyone had attempted to put this epic on film. I still wish he had been able to do the second part. So, when the announcement came that LOTR would be done on film, I was ecstatic. Then, I was upset at the ignoring of Bombadil, and the various and sundry major changes PJ made. It finally dawned on me, however, that PJ wasn't making this movie for me. Nor was he making it for any of the rest of us who are well-versed in Tolkien's literature and lore. There's no way he could, even if each part went six hours instead of three. There is too much to be considered, and the framework would have to be drastically different. It occurred to me that PJ was making this film for those who had not read the books, or who read them a long time ago, because they would comprise the majority of those in the theaters. To them, the omitted parts, and the re-fabricated ideas, and the stunts intended to lend action where there otherwise might not be any, were not a source of dissatisfaction. In this situation, the learned see what is missing, while the others see what is there. They see a full glass - we see too much ice (and no, that is not a commentary on how Americans drink soda-pop).

It does us no good to compare the books to the movies. Enjoy them both for what they are, for within their own genres, they are benchmarks.
Nice post Olorin, very well said, and I pretty much concur with everything you stated!
Orc With Thumbs Up Smilie
Yep, very well put.

A question I would like to ask is how do each of you rate LOTR in the medium it relates to? I can say that the books are probably (no, definitely) the best books I have ever read (in my opinion) but whereas I enjoyed the films and the amount of detail was spectacular, I wouldn't rate them as the best films I have ever seen.
LOTR is not the best film i've ever seen, quite the contrary.

As for best book : not really, either. There are some other books that are equal best to me.
I have to concur with Vir - niether is the best ever book nor film. However, in terms of Fantasy, I can find no better, hence I call it the Benchmark of that genre.

As far as the movie is concerned, no one has ever undertaken a film project of this magnitude, nor has anyone, to my knowledge, ever attempted to film three movies concurrently. The sheer enormity of it all places Jackson's LOTR films in a class of their own.

my favorite film of all time? Being There, except they ruined it at the end.
Quote:
A question I would like to ask is how do each of you rate LOTR in the medium it relates to? I can say that the books are probably (no, definitely) the best books I have ever read (in my opinion) but whereas I enjoyed the films and the amount of detail was spectacular, I wouldn't rate them as the best films I have ever seen.


That’s pretty much exactly how I feel. For me personally, Tolkien is my favorite writer, and LOTR, and The Sil. are easily IMHO the very best books I’ve ever read. I rate those two pieces of work as high up as you can possibly go, and then some! Certainly the benchmark in the fantasy genre, but also the benchmark period for me!

As far as the films go, I rate those very high in their respective genre/medium as well, and do consider them to be a benchmark for many things they achieved (just as the original Star Wars films were for so long, and still are in many ways). I like the films, but they’re not my favorite by a long shot. The SEE of FOTR is possibly the only one of the three LOTR films that I might even consider for a ranking in my all time top 5, but I would be hard pressed to even do that. I would put it in my personal top 10 though with the SEE of ROTK, and the SEE of TT somewhere in my top 20.
Elf Smilie
I hate to say it amongst you all who are hard-core anti-LOTR movies, but I love the movies. I don't like many movies at all (mainly I like historical/mythological), but the movies are what pushed me to read the books. After reading the books, I loved them much more than the movies, but the movies are still my favorite movies and have not ruined the boooks for me. I just found the thick books intimidating, and I hated reading until I picked up the Magic Kingdom For Sale series by Terry Brooks. Instantly, I became hooked on fantsay novels. I just happened to see the movies before the books, but I love both.
I think a lot of us more versed Tolkien fans tend to forget what gigantic cinematic acheivements the three LOTR movies are in their own right, apart from all that we know to be flawed or grossly wrong with them, not only from the perspective of the complexity of their content, but especially for their scope and grandeur. The amount of manpower, cast members and extras, sets, hours of makeup for the stars, miniatures, hours of editing, etc., that it took to actually create a visual M.E. is astonishing and more involved than any previous film in cinematic history and to me was well-deserving of the eleven Academy Awards ROTK won at last year's Oscars...

I will also admit, however, that like OlorinIWasInMyYouth, I too was appalled at the omition of Tom Bombadil my beloved, and that alone was enough to sway my opinion of the movies towards mild disdain.

I am not sure that I could rank any of the LOTR movies in the same categories as, say, Shawshank Redemption or The Royal Tennenbaums or Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas or Forrest Gump, however, which are also fav.'s of mine-it is not only that they are all in different genres, but they all also leave you with different emotions, so it is only fair to lump like with like...so in the way of fantasy movies, LOTR is right up there with Wizard of Oz, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands and Neverending Story for me. One could go on for ages!

As books go, I hate to bring another religious reference to the table, but I feel very much that Tolkien's works, The Silmarillion and LOTR especially, are all the beauty, depth, and emotion of The Bible itself...both are extraordinary literary works. So that's my silly two cents' worth!
Ulmo, quite honestly (wow, I sound like Simon Cowell, don't I? sorry...), that is exactly what I hope the movies will do. Like I said earlier, I think the movies were done with those in mind who had either not read the books, or had done so long ago. That the movies are selling books and moving people to read or re-read LOTR is wonderful.
The books are better, without a doubt. Don't get me wrong the movies are classics in their own rights, but trying to compare those 3 movies, with an fantasy benchmark author who dedicated almost a lifetime to achieve the glory of LOTR isn't even a question, for me.

Like a few people here i'll admit Tolkien isn't my favourite author. If you guys ever come across a Wilbur Smith book try it out!

However i'll give credit where it was due, and the LOTR movies were a smashing success! The first movie, FOTR, is what introduced me into Tolkiens world, and basically turned me into a fiend for the stuff. (Not entirely true, i tried to read The HObbit in grade 4 but to little success due to my short attention span, at that age)
Quote:
It does us no good to compare the books to the movies. Enjoy them both for what they are, for within their own genres, they are benchmarks.


I completely agree.

As for medium... wow that is a tough cookie. As a book? No. Sorry. But where to put Tolkien's LOTR? For years it has been English literature (which it would make it one of the best), but as fantasy? No, I most defenitely have read better fantasy books. But then again, each to their own Smile Smilie And what on earth are we trying to compare??? We all have our different preferences and tastes in things.

As for the movies.. Yeah they are good, but still there are flaws, especially on the scripting and editing parts (imho), that makes the movies not *the* best ones, but wow they are really close. Every time I watch the movies I get swept away by the visual story that is presented to me and that makes it very very good. Good visuals, good acting, good effects. The LOTR-movies have set a new standard, especially by the WETA-guys, so yeah. They are special Smile Smilie
Quote:
For years it has been English literature (which it would make it one of the best), but as fantasy? No, I most defenitely have read better fantasy books.


I used to think that the first 'proper' fantasy book I read was probably Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea and then after a gap of many years Weiss and Hickman's Deathgate Cycle until someone pointed out to me that LOTR was fantasy. I never though of it as such and, as Rhapsody sort of said above, to me it was just wonderful English Literature and still is. Perhaps it is Tolkien's use of language that takes it beyond any particular genre.
Quote:
For years it has been English literature ...
I had always heard that none of the academic literary gurus accepted it as such, for they felt it was beneath their dignity. Like they turned up their collective nose at it.
i think ur right. however only last year i convinved my teacher to let us study LotR instead of Pride and Predjudice, a small victory in makin LotR more accepted as "proper" literature.
Oh, it pisses me off so much that apparently we can only teach books given on a list by the Indiana government, and LOTR is not on them, but I will fight for it within the school corporation. If not, I shall break the laws, that is if I get a teaching job in Indiana or at home. I hate education rules by the Indiana government. Poopy on them!
I hate the movies, but love the books. J. R .R Tolkiens books are my favorite now and forever. ~Irima-Arwen
  << [1] [2]