LotR movies better than the books?

[KenM]

When I said Tolkien fails, I meant he fails in moving the story along at a reasonable pace. Its is a work of fiction and the pace of the plot should have been faster, IMO. I'm quarter way through first song of ice and fire book, love it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The thing is, if he had failed in that respect, then the number of people who have read the book over the years would have been considerably fewer, and the movies (and everything else) would never have been made.

 

[LostSoul]

A richly {and extensively} detailed seeting is one of the particular pleasures of fantasy fiction.

Dune has a richly detailed setting, but it's done succinctly. The story moves at a good pace without bogging the reader down with long passages of detail, and the world is still rich and extensively detailed.

 

[King_Stannis]

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.

Man, there should be some kind of fine system in place for even mentioning Jordan in the same sentence as Tolkien. Mind you, I feel that Martin's "Ice and Fire" is every bit as good as Tolkien's LotR, but that's as far as I'll go. There are points for being (more or less) the first, and Tolkien gets them and should be deferred to.

What's ultra-maddening is that you dare suggest Tolkien gets bogged down and then offer Jorden as a better alternative. 10 books, thousands upon thousands of pages, and countless wry smiles, arm-folds, sniffs and braid-tugs would suggest to an objective observer that Jordan is the master of bogging a story down, not Tolkien.

Good god, LotR is what, 1,000 pages? And in that time he was able to tell a timeless tale that actually *gets resolved* at the end.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I need to remember to start a "Dinosaurs suck and are the lamest monsters you can use in a game" thread just for reapersaurus...

 

[Salthanas]

Man, there should be some kind of fine system in place for even mentioning Jordan in the same sentence as Tolkien. Mind you, I feel that Martin's "Ice and Fire" is every bit as good as Tolkien's LotR, but that's as far as I'll go. There are points for being (more or less) the first, and Tolkien gets them and should be deferred to.

What's ultra-maddening is that you dare suggest Tolkien gets bogged down and then offer Jorden as a better alternative. 10 books, thousands upon thousands of pages, and countless wry smiles, arm-folds, sniffs and braid-tugs would suggest to an objective observer that Jordan is the master of bogging a story down, not Tolkien.

Good god, LotR is what, 1,000 pages? And in that time he was able to tell a timeless tale that actually *gets resolved* at the end.

Having read Jordans 10th book in his series (we in the UK got it slightly before the US) I definetly agree with the above sentiments. While I like the Wheel of Time series the later books have started to meander so badly that it becomes a sever test of endurance to read them mainly because of the rising sense of frustration one feels to tell Jordan to get on with the story. Jordans latest offering was the first book I've read that for an entire 700 odd pages nothing happens, the first 250 pages alone cover the same time frame from different peoples point of view! Its about the only time in my life that I seriously considered book burning to be a good idea.

On the original question of which is better the films or the books, I say the books without question. Although Tolkiens work can at times be slightly laboured I can forgive him for this purely because at its best his writing can be so beautiful and evocative that it reaches a level IMO that no other in the genre has yet reached. Even with the spectacular special effects and wonderful landscapes that Peter Jackson has used to bring the films to life they still pale in comparrison to the images that Tolkiens writing can create in the mind. I can understand however that the books are not going to be everyone's cup of tea so to speak and its a credit to Peter Jackson that his films have managed to capture such a large audience and yet have managed for the most part to remain faithful to the original work.

yours Salthanas

 

[KenM]

But Jordan at least has exciting stuff going on in his books. the way Tolkien writes "The 4 hobbits walk down the road, it was a wide road, with rich green shrubs on the side. Then they contine up over a hill, with more shrubs, and around another hill they walk, but this paticalar hill does not have shrubs, one of the hobbits knew a song on why this hill does not have shubs, they sang: "LA LA LA "................................ FIFTY pages later "LA LA LA" the song ends, then the hobbits keep walking down the road.......... " I only read the first 3 WOT books

 

[Mallus]

Dune has a richly detailed setting, but it's done succinctly. The story moves at a good pace without bogging the reader down with long passages of detail, and the world is still rich and extensively detailed.

Herbert's Dune?

Succinct?

<Inigo> I don't think that word means what you think it means </Inigo>

My point was merely that SF/F readers do want lots of description {and maps and glossaries... hey, Dune had both}. The want world-building. Other fantastic, Romantic worlds to visit in for a stretch. Its the central allure of the genres, IMHO. When discussing comtemporary mainstream fiction, you seldom hear the term "world-building" thrown around, but its a mainsty of genre criticism. Its what the people want, damnit.

We can debate how much is too much... some people's richly detailed setting is others crashing, discursive bore.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

We can debate how much is too much... some people's richly detailed setting is others crashing, discursive bore.

Such debates are completely subjective, so it ends up simply being: "Yes it is." "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "No it isn't." etc. etc. How much is too much detail? Whatever the individual reader likes. For millions of Tolkien fans, apparently, there wasn't too much detail in the books. For some there was.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

The thing is, if he had failed in that respect, then the number of people who have read the book over the years would have been considerably fewer, and the movies (and everything else) would never have been made.

Nonsense. Do you know how many popular, trashy novels become popular, trashy movies every year? New Line didn't make these films because they're great literature. They did it because they knew there would be guaranteed HUGE box office receipts.