LotR movies better than the books?

[reapersaurus]

I'm serious.
Not only am I not concerned about how the movies differ from the books, but I'll go much further...

I don't have time or the knowledge for a big analysis of it, but I wanted to check the board's opinions of the merits of the movie vs. the book.

I am no big fan of the book, and not a purist AT ALL.
I read LotR once and liked it, but that like was tempered by the memory of all that damned descriptiveness, and all the linguistics and lyrics which I was not a fan of.

I have not re-read the books up to now.
After I flipped open The Two Towers book and read the first 2 pages, it reminded me very clearly what I didn't like about the books.

The "Aragorn finds Boromir" scene in the book, for lack of any other description, SUCKED.
It was incalculably better in the movie.
Better dialogue, better character development, better emotion, etc.
The book even had Aragorn taking precious time away from pursuing the orcs to sit down next to Boromir's body and WEEP like a baby.

The very quick conclusion I came to is that the scenes in the movie may be much better than the same scenes in the books.

So any of you non-purists who have more knowledge about the books than me, let me know what you think about the book vs. movie idea.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Books are books and movies are movies, and I liken comparing the two to apples and oranges.

I love Tolkien's use of language in his books. I thought Peter Jackson captured the visual feel of the Middle Earth described by Tolkien remarkably well.

Which is the true LotR? **shrug**

A literal movie translation of the books would likely have made a poor movie. Likewise, a print version in modern prose of Peter Jackson's movies would never be the great works of literature that are Tolkien's books.

The books get #1 in my book category; the movies get #1 in my movies category -- but I don't combine categories.

 

[EricNoah]

I think you're cheating yourself out of a "complete" experience you only view/read one or the other. For me the book has been enhanced by watching the movies (I found myself delving into the Appendix of the books, for instance, to find out more about movie-Arwen), and certainly a knowledge of the books helped me enjoy the movies more (as I mentally fill in things that are left out or only mentioned in passing in the movies).

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, reaper, as you know, it's all subjective. Maybe the scenes in the film seem better to you, but my opinion is simply the opposite of yours. That doesn't mean that the movies sucked. It just means that I prefer the way the book did the story. I guess I could provide detailed analysis of each scene and why it was better in the book, but then you could just counter with why you felt the movie scenes were better. Your Boromir death-scene example is prime - I have commented to friends how that scene in the film is vastly inferior, in my opinion. Some of the action is cool to watch, but most everything else suffers in comparison to the book. But, I like all the stuff you state that you don't like - I like all the descriptive material, the linguistics, the lyrics.

By the way, i don't always prefer the book to the film when it comes to movies. There are several films I felt were better than the book - Jurassic Park and the Hunt for Red October are examples. Then again, there are plenty of books I do prefer to the films - Run Silent, Run Deep (by a long shot) and Fight Club are examples.

 

[KenM]

I think the LOTR movies are better then the book, I don't like Tolkiens style, too much description and too slow plot resolution. I can't even get through FELLOWSHIP without getting bored. Peter Jackson struck the right balance between action and backround IMO. Love the extendended Fellowship DVD, can't wait for the other two extended DVD's. I read bot Red October and Jurassic park, they did i good job with red october, bit the jussaic park movie was eye candy, totally changed plot from book, other then basic premase.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

and certainly a knowledge of the books helped me enjoy the movies more (as I mentally fill in things that are left out or only mentioned in passing in the movies).

I agree with EN on this.

While I am not a big fan of the books, I am deeply enjoying the movies. I suspect knowing the details behind many of the scenes is what is allowing me to enjoy the movies so much.

I apply the same theory to the Harry Potter movies. I have not read the books and am not that impressed with the movies, but I guess if I did read the books then I could appreciate the movies all the more.

SD

 

[orbitalfreak]

Loved the movies, but I never finished the books. I don't care for Tolkein's writing style, and barely managed to trudge my way through several chapters, but finally gave up after Tom Bombadil.

 

[MulhorandSage]

The movies are great pieces of work and I can't wait for the Extended Version and RotK. But the books have not only stood the test of time, they had a profound effect on my life when I was growing up. That's a different level of experience altogether, and one that no movie will be able to match at this point in my life.

Scott Bennie

 

[Michael Tree]

A literal movie translation of the books would likely have made a poor movie. Likewise, a print version in modern prose of Peter Jackson's movies would never be the great works of literature that are Tolkien's books.

The books get #1 in my book category; the movies get #1 in my movies category -- but I don't combine categories.

You captured it in one. In some cases a book is clearly superior to a movie, and vice versa, but in cases where they're both excellent they're hard to compare.

I have criticisms of the movies, but those criticisms are the nature of "this bit didn't work" or "that bit was unneccessary", not criticisms of their lack of faithfulness to the books.

But as for which is better, the books are great classics, and the movies are great films that may become classics.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The books are far better than the movies in my opinion.

The particular scene with Boromir was played out much better in my imagination than in the movies. In the FotR, I found the movie version of Boromir's fight much less heroic than the one in my mind.

I find it hard to believe that you could not visualize the epic battle that Boromir had against the orcs. He was stuck full of arrows. He was breaking them off while he fought.

Can you not picture Boromir in your mind fighting in a blind rage, stuck full of arrows defending the two small hobbits from being killed or kidnapped by a horde of orcs? Can you not imagine the sorrow the man felt while he died stuck to a tree with blood pouring from his body feeling as though he failed in his quest to save Gondor, his homeland?

The scene I imagine in the book makes me weep. The scene in the movie barely moves me, and mostly because I remember what happened in the book.

I was seriously angry, and I mean really angry, that they had Aragorn show up to "save" Boromir from a quick death. Boromir needed no saving. He was the greatest warrior from the greatest human kingdom in all of Middle Earth. Few if any were the equal of Boromir as a warrior. The only ones who probably could equal Boromir in combat were Aragorn and the best elven warriors.

No, never in a million years will the movies be better than the books. My imagination can conjure better imagery and more emotion than the current movies.

This is coming from someone who actually enjoys the movies. I just love the books. My favorite books of all time.