-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
LotR movies better than the books?
- Thread starter reapersaurus
- Start date
Lady Starhawk
First Post
A note from your friendly neighborhood dyslexic with ADD 
Personally I loved the movies. The books did nothing for me. I merely read them because after I saw Fellowship i HAD to know what happened to the characters.
It felt like I was reading a textbook. I was not drawn emotionally into the story at all, I could not picture anything that was being described. I for the life of me couldn't figure out what Helm's deep looked like from the book, so reading the action was confusing at best. I couldn't figure out the pictures through all the description.
I couldn't figure out how to pronounce most of the names (had I not seen the movie I would have been up a creek without a paddle).
The movie showed me what was going on. I was drawn into the characters through the eyes. I am very glad that Jackson filmed the way he did because I look at people's eyes, and that's how I understand what's going on with them. I was drawn into the movies emotionally and I ended up crying in the theater.
However: I belong to the camp that movies are a different medium than books. They tell their tale in a different way. I can't compare books and movies in terms of "what was better" and I prefer not to. I am glad I read the books, and perhaps after Rotk comes out I may re-read them, but I may never touch them again. If you could wear out a dvd I probably would have by now. I watch Fellowship all the time. And I still get emotionally drawn into the movie (and I still shed a tear or two).
So which is better :Neither. Apples and Oranges my freind
I loved the movies, didn't care for the books. But I like Apples and don't like Oranges...
Lady Starhawk
<Spell check IS your friend>
Personally I loved the movies. The books did nothing for me. I merely read them because after I saw Fellowship i HAD to know what happened to the characters.
It felt like I was reading a textbook. I was not drawn emotionally into the story at all, I could not picture anything that was being described. I for the life of me couldn't figure out what Helm's deep looked like from the book, so reading the action was confusing at best. I couldn't figure out the pictures through all the description.
I couldn't figure out how to pronounce most of the names (had I not seen the movie I would have been up a creek without a paddle).
The movie showed me what was going on. I was drawn into the characters through the eyes. I am very glad that Jackson filmed the way he did because I look at people's eyes, and that's how I understand what's going on with them. I was drawn into the movies emotionally and I ended up crying in the theater.
However: I belong to the camp that movies are a different medium than books. They tell their tale in a different way. I can't compare books and movies in terms of "what was better" and I prefer not to. I am glad I read the books, and perhaps after Rotk comes out I may re-read them, but I may never touch them again. If you could wear out a dvd I probably would have by now. I watch Fellowship all the time. And I still get emotionally drawn into the movie (and I still shed a tear or two).
So which is better :Neither. Apples and Oranges my freind
I loved the movies, didn't care for the books. But I like Apples and don't like Oranges...
Lady Starhawk
<Spell check IS your friend>
Bob Aberton
First Post
Err...Celtavian....
That is exactly what happened in the movie, at least as I saw it. I thought it showed his rage and sorrow quite well.
"...And now my city will come to darkness, and its people to ruin..."
That was part of Boromir's death speech.
And as for the first part of your quote, it sure looked like he was fighting in a blind rage, stuck full of arrows, et al.
Boromir may have been the greatest warrior in MIddle-Earth, but at the time Aragorn rescued him he was, as you said, stuck full of arrows. Not very heroic (him being saved by Aragorn, that is...), maybe, but it set up some good character developement for Aragorn, so I'm not complaining.
And you just admitted yourself that Aragorn was a better warrior than Boromir. Given that, I don't understand why its so demeaning for Boromir to be 'saved' by a better warrior than he.
Don't mean to be condescending, don't mean to start a flame war, etc. You probably just saw something different in movies than I did.
But still, I just don't understand the depth of your resentment over the manner of Boromir's death.
That is exactly what happened in the movie, at least as I saw it. I thought it showed his rage and sorrow quite well.
"...And now my city will come to darkness, and its people to ruin..."
That was part of Boromir's death speech.
And as for the first part of your quote, it sure looked like he was fighting in a blind rage, stuck full of arrows, et al.
Boromir may have been the greatest warrior in MIddle-Earth, but at the time Aragorn rescued him he was, as you said, stuck full of arrows. Not very heroic (him being saved by Aragorn, that is...), maybe, but it set up some good character developement for Aragorn, so I'm not complaining.
And you just admitted yourself that Aragorn was a better warrior than Boromir. Given that, I don't understand why its so demeaning for Boromir to be 'saved' by a better warrior than he.
Don't mean to be condescending, don't mean to start a flame war, etc. You probably just saw something different in movies than I did.
But still, I just don't understand the depth of your resentment over the manner of Boromir's death.
Mathew_Freeman
First Post
Sorry to sit on the fence, but I'm in the "I loved the books and I loved the films, but I can't compare them".
*shrug*
Wish I could get excited by this, but the books are amazing in-depth fantasy works full of detail that draw you in and make you care. And the films are wonderful, thrilling, exciting, emotional works of genius that I love as well.
*shrug*
Wish I could get excited by this, but the books are amazing in-depth fantasy works full of detail that draw you in and make you care. And the films are wonderful, thrilling, exciting, emotional works of genius that I love as well.
Better? Better at what?
The movie is perhaps somewhat better at getting the audience viscerally involved in the story - it has the advantage of fast pace, the ability to surprise, use background music. In a movie one can get away with having an action sequence every 15 minutes or so, keeping the audience alert and closer to the edge of their seats.
The book is far, far better at communicating the size and history of the world. Tolkien has the liberty to insert a great deal of background information, so that we understand better the context of events.
As a good example, let's think of Moria - riveting sequence in the movie - characters wandering around in the dark (visual darkness and tense background music always keeps an audience interested, a great fight scene, and a dramatic confrontation with a great piece of CGI...
But it has little context. The majority of the history of Moria doesn't make it into the movie. Who the heck was Balin, and how is it that nobody knew that the dwarves in Moria were dead? Even the death of Gandalf loses punch in the movie - we see hobbits collapsing in tears, but honestly, have we seen Gandalf have enough meaningful interaction with Merry and Pippin that they should be incapacitated with grief?
Another good examle is Gimli. Even in the books, he's not the best developed character by a long shot. But, due to time limitations, PJ is reduced to making Gimli into comic relief. An entire proud race of Middle Earth reduced to a few paltry short jokes...
Yes, Tolkien's prose and plot development seem slow to us. Tolkien had more patience than most of his Hollywood-conditioned modern readers. So, the movie is better at grabbing the audience, no doubt there. However, the movie is incomplete. It lacks context and content. It skims the surface of Middle Earth - bouncing along on the skipping rock is fun and exciting, but it doesn't give you the full experience and perspective of the full ocean.
The movie is perhaps somewhat better at getting the audience viscerally involved in the story - it has the advantage of fast pace, the ability to surprise, use background music. In a movie one can get away with having an action sequence every 15 minutes or so, keeping the audience alert and closer to the edge of their seats.
The book is far, far better at communicating the size and history of the world. Tolkien has the liberty to insert a great deal of background information, so that we understand better the context of events.
As a good example, let's think of Moria - riveting sequence in the movie - characters wandering around in the dark (visual darkness and tense background music always keeps an audience interested, a great fight scene, and a dramatic confrontation with a great piece of CGI...
But it has little context. The majority of the history of Moria doesn't make it into the movie. Who the heck was Balin, and how is it that nobody knew that the dwarves in Moria were dead? Even the death of Gandalf loses punch in the movie - we see hobbits collapsing in tears, but honestly, have we seen Gandalf have enough meaningful interaction with Merry and Pippin that they should be incapacitated with grief?
Another good examle is Gimli. Even in the books, he's not the best developed character by a long shot. But, due to time limitations, PJ is reduced to making Gimli into comic relief. An entire proud race of Middle Earth reduced to a few paltry short jokes...
Yes, Tolkien's prose and plot development seem slow to us. Tolkien had more patience than most of his Hollywood-conditioned modern readers. So, the movie is better at grabbing the audience, no doubt there. However, the movie is incomplete. It lacks context and content. It skims the surface of Middle Earth - bouncing along on the skipping rock is fun and exciting, but it doesn't give you the full experience and perspective of the full ocean.
Sixchan
First Post
I don't like the book of the film. It bears very little resemblance to the great movie, and its obviously one of these cheap gimmicks that they use to get more profits. And what were they thinking with the author? His work is so boring! And Faramir! They completely changed his character for the book! How could they Butcher PJ's work with an abomination like this?
()
(
)Hello.
Like others before me, I agree that there is no parallel to comparing books to movies. Two different mediums requiring two different ways to achieve their goals.
Now because of the following, I must surely be in a minority:
Although I have played/dm'd D&D for 14 years, have been a member of the SCA, and have enjoyed many a renessiance fair, I have NEVER read any of Tolkien's works. That's right--Not a single one. (Please put away the torches.)
I have viewed FOTR and TTT without having any foreknowledge of characters or their motivations. The movies are simply the best fantasy movies, if not the best movies regardless of genre I have ever seen. I have held my breath, gripped my seat, shivered, cheered, and even cried during these movies. (I have seen FOTR 15+ times, and will probably watch TTT as much when it comes out on DVD.)
Many people have described how audiences would be left wondering about continuity because certain scenes weren't included, or certain events were changed, but from someone who never read the books I can safely say that I was never left wondering about any of it.
Now my opinion on the Boromir death scene:
I cried. I admit it. Like I said before, I never read the books, so I had no idea he would die. Sean Bean's performance during this movie was great, but the death scene brought it all together. I honestly would have had trouble with him breaking off arrows, or even taking any more than they showed in the movie. The movie scene felt very plausible, while that other description makes me think it would only work if they had Dwayne Johnson ala the Scorpion King (or Arnold back in his buff Conan days). Boromir was a man. No magic and no superpowers. At the end of FOTR (and even now after seeing it so often), he remains one of the most heroic characters I have seen in any movie.
Like others before me, I agree that there is no parallel to comparing books to movies. Two different mediums requiring two different ways to achieve their goals.
Now because of the following, I must surely be in a minority:
Although I have played/dm'd D&D for 14 years, have been a member of the SCA, and have enjoyed many a renessiance fair, I have NEVER read any of Tolkien's works. That's right--Not a single one. (Please put away the torches.)
I have viewed FOTR and TTT without having any foreknowledge of characters or their motivations. The movies are simply the best fantasy movies, if not the best movies regardless of genre I have ever seen. I have held my breath, gripped my seat, shivered, cheered, and even cried during these movies. (I have seen FOTR 15+ times, and will probably watch TTT as much when it comes out on DVD.)
Many people have described how audiences would be left wondering about continuity because certain scenes weren't included, or certain events were changed, but from someone who never read the books I can safely say that I was never left wondering about any of it.
Now my opinion on the Boromir death scene:
I cried. I admit it. Like I said before, I never read the books, so I had no idea he would die. Sean Bean's performance during this movie was great, but the death scene brought it all together. I honestly would have had trouble with him breaking off arrows, or even taking any more than they showed in the movie. The movie scene felt very plausible, while that other description makes me think it would only work if they had Dwayne Johnson ala the Scorpion King (or Arnold back in his buff Conan days). Boromir was a man. No magic and no superpowers. At the end of FOTR (and even now after seeing it so often), he remains one of the most heroic characters I have seen in any movie.
mooby
First Post
Of course movies and books are different medium, but that doesn't mean that one can't be better or worse than the other.
For instance, ever read Micheal Criton's The Sphere, then see the movie? The book is fantastic, while the movie blew. (I know there are tons of other examples, just this one comes to mind).
So, I'm of the opinion that they're different mediums, and in the case of Lord of the Rings, both the books and movies are outstanding.
For instance, ever read Micheal Criton's The Sphere, then see the movie? The book is fantastic, while the movie blew. (I know there are tons of other examples, just this one comes to mind).
So, I'm of the opinion that they're different mediums, and in the case of Lord of the Rings, both the books and movies are outstanding.
Sulimo
First Post
reapersaurus said:
I'd disagree most strenuously. The films are very much a watered down readers-digest version of the book. And frankly, with a few exceptions, about the only thing Jackson did capture is perhaps the landscape.
The films dont even have Gimli...they've just got Elwood instead.
Thats not to say that I didn't like the films.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
