LotR movies better than the books?

[Assenpfeffer]

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.

Yes, but it's a false analogy. Every single one of those trashy books and movies will be forgotten in three years' time. Not so with LotR. It has endured, and would not have done so if it really "failed" as some assert.

It's history that tells the story of a work's success or failure.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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.

What part of what I wrote is nonsense? The movies were made because the books have endured for half-a-century, so they felt it was worth the gamble. The trashy stuff you're talking about is guaranteed an audience because of its luridity. Lord of the Rings had no sex or explicit violence; its only "hook" for a movie studio was how long it has been popular. Other fantasy films have never made the kind of money LotR made, so it certainly wasn't the subject matter that attracted producers. And yeah, I do know about film. I've worked in it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Yes, but it's a false analogy. Every single one of those trashy books and movies will be forgotten in three years' time. Not so with LotR. It has endured, and would not have done so if it really "failed" as some assert.

It's history that tells the story of a work's success or failure.

Precisely. Many of the films of the past were based on trashy potboiler novels of the time, which are completely forgotten now. Lord of the Rings already has a half-century of history behind it already, so it's certainly not flavor-of the-week.

Whether or not LotR is literature is subjective, but it generally is considered literature. I mean, hell, it's got Cliff's Notes

 

[Mallus]

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.

ColH... my point was that the level of detail in Tolkien {and in all the subsequent works in Tolkien's vein} was something readers sought out in fantasy fiction. The fantasy readership seems to gravitate towards sprawling, discursive epics full of vivid place/cultural/historical linguistic detail. I was surprised to read about someone who read fantasy but didn't read like "learning about {insert authors name here} world".

Of course its all subjective. And I didn't mean to start a debate on Tolkien's descriptiveness. I wasn't clear in my earlier post.

 

[reapersaurus]

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

ggrrrrrrrr!!!!


Hey - I didn't say the books sucked.
I said (and here's what people didn't catch) that the first TWO pages of TTT sucked.

And they do.

I challenge anyone to copy-paste the first 2 pages of TTT, and we can compare the scenes book vs movie, and see which is better....

 

[garyh]

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.

Tolkien is my all-time favorite author, and Jordan my favorite still-writing author, and I still have to agree with this. You can learn Sindarin before Rand even gets to the Eye of the World.

 

[MulhorandSage]

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.

There was no guarantee of huge success.

The 1979 animated film flopped at the box office, as did the last film in the genre (Dungeons and Dragons). No fantasy film of this type had ever been a huge hit - and financing all three films simultaneously was an almost unprecedented risk.

The films were made because Jackson was passionate about the source material, intelligent in his planning and preparation, and persuasive in his pitch to the studio. And also because New Line had something you don't normally associate with movie studio execs - balls.

But - as Jackson himself attests - they were far from a sure thing.

Scott Bennie

 

[Celtavian]

Re

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.

I agree completely with this statement.



I understand that some people grow weary of unwavering Tolkien fans attacking in droves anyone who would even suggest that Tolkien has an equal, but I don't think it will change anytime soon. LotR is the best fantasy book I have ever read, and I can read it over and over again anytime I have an inkling for a fantasy tale.

Tolkien's tale is ageless. Some say it reads like a textbook, that is a testament to his skill because he meant it to be a history and geography book as well as fantasy tale. The story was not meant to be a simple story, but a mythological tale that one could almost believe occurred prior to man becoming the sole heir of the earth.

Tolkien's book is so much more than a fantasy tale. I find it difficult to explain to those who are simply seeking an entertaining fantasy read that they don't have to think about. You have to think while you read Tolkien's tale to truly enjoy the complexity of the tale and the deeper meanings of the various characters and conversations they engage in.

 

[Sixchan]

I'm trying to read them again. I've tried 4 times now. I can't get into them, but maybe it's because its so big. Now I've got them as 3 seperate books, I think I might get there. I too believe that Tolkien got too bogged down in detail and moves the story at too slow a pace. I think Tolkien is one of the best, if not the best fantasy writers of all time, but not because of LotR.

I've read the Hobbit more than 10 times now. Definitely one of the Best books ever, and IMO, better than LotR. I'm actually looking forward more to the inevitable film of the Hobbit than I am to RotK.

 

[Storm Raven]

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 have an odd definition of "getting bogged down".

Fellowship of the Ring clocks in at 398 pages in paperback. The Two Towers is 415 pages. In comparison, The Eye of the World, the first book in the Wheel of Time series, is 814 pages long.

Yep, the first book in Jordan's (now) ten book series is, by itself, longer than the first two books of Tolkien's trilogy. Add in the Return of the King and you add another 1140 pages to LotR, but a big chunk of those are appendices, roughly 700 pages of the last book is actually part of the story. Add The Great Hunt on Jordan's side, and you add 705 pages.

So, the first two books of Jordan's series are about as long as the entirety of Tolkien's series. And yet, Tolkien is "long winded" and Jordan is not? You have an odd idea of what constitutes "long-winded". (Plus, I was never as bored with LotR as I was with the interminable travelling sequences in Eye of the World).