LotR movies better than the books?

[Black Omega]

I'll chime in on loving both. I read the books when I was young. And wouldn't you know the library only had in the TT, starting my long running theme of starting series in mid stride.

I love the books but admit I skip past certain parts. I think I'll always see worgs are more wolflike. But otherwise, I've really enjoyed every bit of the movies. One of the things I liked best about FotR was that they gave a good feel for how Gandalf, Bilbo, etc were good friends and had been for a long time, without spending alot of time in the movie setting that up.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Bob Aberton,

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.

I said equal, not better. Boromir was constantly warring and leading armies. I think Aragorn and Boromir were equals in war skill, but Boromir was physically stronger than Aragorn, or at least Tolkien alluded to Boromir's great physical strength.


The reason Boromir didn't need saving is because in the book, no orc would approach him. The reason they started shooting arrows into him is because the orc warriors could not beat him in battle. This is shown somewhat better in the EE of FotR.

The part I did not enjoy was the last orc leader walking up to Boromir to finish him with an arrow. Even as wounded as he was, Boromir could have killed that orc IMO. That is really what angers me the most.

In the books, the orcs shied away from Boromir out of fear. He was so unbelievably good at fighting, even stuck full of arrows, the orcs feared to approach him including the orc leader. That is why he was not hacked to death as is usual for fallen orc enemies.

I would have preferred that they stuck to the books and just had Aragorn converse with a dying Boromir. To me, it takes away from Boromir's heroics that he had to be saved by Aragorn. For others such as yourself, this is not the case.

Boromir is one the characters I felt a great deal of sympathy for in the book. He was a man of action and great deeds. A man who lived to protect his people and to drive back the hordes of the dark lord.

Having him rescued by Aragorn ruined the scene for me. I also was waiting to see him break off the arrows stuck in him while he fought. That was a great visual image from the book I was really looking forward to.

I must admit that overall, Sean Bean did a great job of portraying Boromir. He was not the right physical size for the character, but his acting ability more than made up for the lacking physical characterization.

The book will always move me more. The movies are still my favorite of all time, mostly because they are based on my favorite book of all time.

Having both the books and the movies is dream come true. The way PJ brought Middle Earth to life is extremely admirable, yet certain scenes will always be better in the book in my opinion.

One scene that is better in the movie is when Gandalf faces off against the Balrog. That scene was awsome as was the addition in the Two Towers when they showed what happened as he fell. Just awe-inspiring and nearly exactly as I imagined it, even a little better.


As I said, I love the movies. I just am a little unhappy that some people can't visualize what I do when I read Tolkien. I am never bored nor disappointed. The entire journey through the first book to the last book just gets better each time I read it.

I learn more and more about the characters as I go on. The characters are straight out of man's fantasy of what good and evil conspire to be.

 

[Chauzu]

Overall I like the book better, but some scenes from the movies I like better, such as the Borimir death scene, some of the beginning, and Helm's Deep.

 

[KenM]

Someone in another thread said you read LoTR to learn about Tolkien's world, and there is a story to go along with it. This is where Tolkien fails, IMO, most people read fiction for the story, NOT to learn about the world. If I wanted to learn about the world, i'd pick up one of the many "about middle earth" books. The movies are better. Some else said when he tried to read the books, it felt like he was reading a textbook, I agree.

 

[Mallus]

This is where Tolkien fails, IMO, most people read fiction for the story, NOT to learn about the world. If I wanted to learn about the world, i'd pick up one of the many "about middle earth" books.

I think a lot of readers {of epic fantasy} would disagree. A richly {and extensively} detailed seeting is one of the particular pleasures of fantasy fiction. Its a genre convention that readers practically demand.

I think the setting often functions as the main character. And leaning about it is as important as learning about characters in mainstream fiction. Does Tolkien's writing fail as drama sometimes? I think so. But what his books offer --a staggering rich world-- makes up for this, and more.

It all comes down to what pleasures you take from a text. I stand by the notion that the highly detailed, highly Romantic worlds of fantasy {which, unsurprisingly look pretty different from the worlds of the average fantasy reader}, are as important, if not more important, than the characters, plots, and even language used to write them.

 

[KenM]

I have read other fantasy authors that are just as detailed, IMO, and have done it better. Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan. Tolkien gets bogged down.

 

[Mallus]

I have read other fantasy authors that are just as detailed, IMO, and have done it better. Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan. Tolkien gets bogged down.

I agree that Tolkien can be a slog. But he did do it first. And I still think LotR is one of those rare works that beat down criticism by invalidating the criteria normally brought to bear on novels. LotR offers the reader something else {someone arround here said that LotR weren't modern novels at all. They were more rightly viewed as Medieval Romances}.

To each his own, but I can't stand Jordan, and haven't given Goodkind more than a cursory glance.

A comparison I wouldn't want to see is LotR vs. Song of Ice and Fire... Martin does so many things right in those books...

 

[Squire James]

I can see how modern readers, "spoiled" by the presence of professional authors who have looked at Tolkien's work and emulated the good parts in their own writings, might have trouble with the works of a WW2-era British professor who just happened to write books. I don't know if I would've ever gotten into Tolkien if, at the time, there were a bunch of other fantasy and sci-fi available. In the 1970's, while Asimov and Bradbury were in their heyday as sci-fi writers, fantasy was still in Conan-land*. Tolkien was a refreshing change from that.

Similarly, the LoTR movie series is a refreshing change for fantasy movies. Essentially, it represents fantasy movies finally making it out of Conan-land*. It's about time!

*Conan-land: Big Hero with Muscles defeats Big Cheating Warlord or Wizard by chopping up Numerous Strange Beasts and finally making it to the Throne Room and chopping his Monstrous Henchmen, then Him, to bits. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I have read other fantasy authors that are just as detailed, IMO, and have done it better. Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan. Tolkien gets bogged down.

You should try that act at the Improv.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Someone in another thread said you read LoTR to learn about Tolkien's world, and there is a story to go along with it. This is where Tolkien fails, IMO, most people read fiction for the story, NOT to learn about the world. If I wanted to learn about the world, i'd pick up one of the many "about middle earth" books. The movies are better. Some else said when he tried to read the books, it felt like he was reading a textbook, I agree.

I don't know that a book that has sold millions of copies over the last 50 years and which has spawned a number of TV shows and movies can be construed as failing, in any respect. If it had, there would be no movies drawn from the books. Apparently millions don't think Tolkien failed, because if he had, there would have been no movies and, of course, this discussion would not be taking place. Plus, those "guide to Middle-earth" books didn't exist until fairly recently, long after Tolkien's books first got popular. The Hobbit was first published in 1937, and the Lord of the Rings in the early/mid 1950s.