[macgeek2005]

I recently got into a rather bizarre debate with a friend of mine about comparing the Lord of the Rings Books to the Movies. My opinion is that you can't say one is "Better" than the other because the books are books and the movies are movies. I think that the books are the best they could have been as a book, and the movies are the best they could have been as movies.

For those of you that don't think the movies were good, just ignore that, as that is not the basis of my argument. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's fair to compare them straight away. My friend says that you can directly compare them because it is the same story, and that the books are hands down "better" than the movies. I really don't think this is fair as the movie is in a different form of art, and it of course has to be an adaption, and you need to think of it's quality based on how films are.

Do you agree with me or my friend?

Thanks.

[Gee4orce]

I kind of agree with you, but not totally. I do think the films and the books should be viewed in their own right, but I don't think the films or the books are as good as they could have been. I think the films suffered from some pacing problems (especially the extended editions), and well as some consistency flaws.

As for the books, it's clear the Tolkein started writing LotR as a sequel to the Hobbit, not as the massive epic it became (he says 'the tale grew in the telling'). The first few chapters really need some heavy editing - the whole old forest/Thom Bombadil/barrow downs sequence should be removed entirely - this is something the films got exactly right !

[red rocket]

[long answer]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

As for the books, it's clear the Tolkein started writing LotR as a sequel to the Hobbit, not as the massive epic it became (he says 'the tale grew in the telling'). The first few chapters really need some heavy editing - the whole old forest/Thom Bombadil/barrow downs sequence should be removed entirely - this is something the films got exactly right !

I don't think you can call LOTR a Hobbit sequel.

The Hobbit is a children's book with next to no mythology or history in it whatsoever. LOTR, on the other hand, is loaded with references to both. The films were dumbed down a lot, compared to the books. Understandably so, from a commercial viewpoint, but from a reader perspective, the LOTR books draw much deeper on the rest of Tolkien's opus (Silmarillion, especially) than they do upon the Hobbit. Take Bilbo out of LOTR, you don't lose much. Gandalf is barely the same character, the dwarves and the elves are totally different. The only thing that ties the Hobbit to the LOTR, is Gollum and his effing Precious.

As for comparing books to movies, yes they are two pretty different media, so maybe you can't.

That said, an adaptation should be judged on how closely it captures the spirit of the novel it's based on, at least. After all, film adaptations are basically a substitute medium for people who don't have the skills to write books of their own.

I don't think the LOTR films captured the spirit of the books too well.

Maybe it would have been better if they'd turned the trilogy not into films, but into something like a thirty part TV series. That would have allowed for a much more authentic version to satisfy the fanbase.
[/long answer]

[short answer]
Books are always better than films. Comparisons are a waste of time.
[/short answer]

[macgeek2005]

Alright good, any other inputs?

Thanks.

[Rumor]

I agree with Red Rocket.

 

Thom Bombadil is the shizzle

[climber]

I think the movies are top notch as Hollywood movies go. Certainly much better than other 3-part movies of that length. While it may be true that they do not faithfully follow the books, who really cares. It still a great epic story that was beautifully filmed.

[macgeek2005]

Keep in mind, the poll is simply asking whether or not you think the books can be "directly" compared to the movies, with one being "better" than the other.

I think you can't compare like that. My friend thinks you can.

[climber]

Well then, is it alright for someone to like the book over the movie or vise versa? Because if you do, you agree with your friend.

We make caparisons between unequal things all the time. It may not be fair, but thats the way it is.

[Chuckit]

Of course you can compare them. You can even compare apples to oranges. The problem is with the idea that you can objectively say one thing is better than another — what are the objective criteria for this? In general, as far as enjoyment is concerned, "better" is a subjective term.

[lpkmckenna]

This is hard to answer. I think the movies are more successful as movies than the books are successful as books. While both have their good and bad aspects, I think the books are not for "general interest," but only for fantasy fanatics. The movies have broad appeal, but the books have only narrow appeal.

I was a casual fantasy reader as a teenager. I liked the Drizzt books for their fast pace, but LotR was simply too slow.

I guess my opinion could be summed up as: the movies are entertaining for most, but the books are entertaining only to few. So I agree with neither of you.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is hard to answer. I think the movies are more successful as movies than the books are successful as books. While both have their good and bad aspects, I think the books are not for "general interest," but only for fantasy fanatics. The movies have broad appeal, but the books have only narrow appeal.

I was a casual fantasy reader as a teenager. I liked the Drizzt books for their fast pace, but LotR was simply too slow.

I guess my opinion could be summed up as: the movies are entertaining for most, but the books are entertaining only to few. So I agree with neither of you.

No, you agree with me. You're saying that you can't directly compare the movies to the books.

[rjenkinson]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

No, you agree with me. You're saying that you can't directly compare the movies to the books.

both have swords in them.

-r.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

the whole old forest/Thom Bombadil/barrow downs sequence should be removed entirely

Slight problem with this... remember the sword used to do in the Lord of the Nazgul? It is obtained in the barrow downs... so they are integral to the story (although I understand why they were cut from the film).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by DeathToWindows 

Slight problem with this... remember the sword used to do in the Lord of the Nazgul? It is obtained in the barrow downs... so they are integral to the story (although I understand why they were cut from the film).

It's not really important to the story though. It's not as though I went, "Ohhh, he got that from the Barrow Downs. Very clever!"

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

No, you agree with me. You're saying that you can't directly compare the movies to the books.

I'm not saying that at all. And I think the story was better told in the movie than the book.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The movies are overwrought, overacted, overdramatic, overpompous, and over-self-indulgent.

Are the books? Absolutely. But you can manage to do that in a book and get away with it. The movies...not so much. Simply far, far too painful. If I have to sit through one more shot of Frodo's pained face and Sam's earnest expression I'd probably shoot myself.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The movies are overwrought, overacted, overdramatic, overpompous, and over-self-indulgent.

Are the books? Absolutely. But you can manage to do that in a book and get away with it. The movies...not so much. Simply far, far too painful. If I have to sit through one more shot of Frodo's pained face and Sam's earnest expression I'd probably shoot myself.

Better than five more pages of Tolkien's lousy poetry.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not saying that at all. And I think the story was better told in the movie than the book.

I think so too. But I also think that you can't say one is "better" than the other.

In my opinion, here are some of the things that were done much better in the movie.

Just off the top of my head:

The Pyre of Denethor: In the book, he has a table covered with oil, and he grabs a staff from one of his guards, throws it on the table, and then jumps on the table himself.

In the movie, he's standing on a whole bunch of sticks and stuff, and he's poured oil on HIMSELF. He grabs a torch, and throws it down at his feet setting himself on fire. Much, much, much better.

The Death of Deagol: In the book, it simply says that "Smeagol snuck up behind him and strangled him, and took the ring". In the movie, they made a masterpiece murder scene out of it.

The Death of Theoden: In the book, Merry talks to theoden as he's dying. WHAT? Eowen is SO much more fit to be the one talking to him as he's dying. She's his niece. The woman that he should have loved as a father. They have a special relationship between them. Much much better in the movie again.

I could go on and on. It's as if Tolkien didn't quite finish editing his books, and Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh not only adapted the story to the screen, but finished the editing process as well.

Anyone else agree with me?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

e screen, but finished the editing process as well.

Anyone else agree with me?

Not me. Your examples are insane. Theoden's death is awesome in the book. He goes nuts, outrides everyone and kicks ass, and then is betrayed by his own horse at the last minute. And having Eowen talk to him isn't more "fitting"; it's more effing cheesy and caters to the bleeding-heart audience, just like most of your points. Having only Merry there emphasizes the importance of these innocuous little folk to the story (which is what the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings tales are all about in the first place) and is somehow more tragic.

IMO, most of the people who loved the movies like cheesy, overwrought moments in film. Whether that's a bad or good thing is one's interpretation, but I hate stuff like that. Peter Jackson is famous for it; just go watch King Kong, another movie in the same overdramatic style. Blech.

Want a good comparison? Last years' The Illusionist vs. The Prestige. Both were similar in their own way (I love how movie studios seem to be able to do that), but - besides from being a mediocre movie – The Illusionist was just too dramatic and overdone in all the wrong places. It takes a stellar director to avoid that kind of crap. Peter Jackson is definitely not that director.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Want a good comparison? Last years' The Illusionist vs. The Prestige. Both were similar in their own way (I love how movie studios seem to be able to do that), but - besides from being a mediocre movie – The Illusionist was just too dramatic and overdone in all the wrong places.

And yet The Prestige was way more popular. I think it's fair to say that Lord of the Rings was quite a bit more skillful than The Illusionist?

Also, having any genuine emotion in the story doesn't make the story cheesy. After the complete vacuum of feeling that was the Lord of the Rings books, I can see why the movie would look melodramatic by comparison, but it really wasn't that bad.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Not me. Your examples are insane. Theoden's death is awesome in the book. He goes nuts, outrides everyone and kicks ass, and then is betrayed by his own horse at the last minute. And having Eowen talk to him isn't more "fitting"; it's more effing cheesy and caters to the bleeding-heart audience, just like most of your points. Having only Merry there emphasizes the importance of these innocuous little folk to the story (which is what the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings tales are all about in the first place) and is somehow more tragic.

IMO, most of the people who loved the movies like cheesy, overwrought moments in film. Whether that's a bad or good thing is one's interpretation, but I hate stuff like that. Peter Jackson is famous for it; just go watch King Kong, another movie in the same overdramatic style. Blech.

Want a good comparison? Last years' The Illusionist vs. The Prestige. Both were similar in their own way (I love how movie studios seem to be able to do that), but - besides from being a mediocre movie – The Illusionist was just too dramatic and overdone in all the wrong places. It takes a stellar director to avoid that kind of crap. Peter Jackson is definitely not that director.

greg

Did Theoden's horse really betray him? I don't remember that at all.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Did Theoden's horse really betray him? I don't remember that at all.

Let's see, one of the most symbolically imbued parts in the entire series (the forces of good and evil meeting under the ruined gate of the White City, the Horse King tragically betrayed by his mount, yadda yadda), and you don't even remember that at all. Gee. It's almost as if...the movies have tainted you!

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And yet The Prestige was way more popular. I think it's fair to say that Lord of the Rings was quite a bit more skillful than The Illusionist?

Also, having any genuine emotion in the story doesn't make the story cheesy. After the complete vacuum of feeling that was the Lord of the Rings books, I can see why the movie would look melodramatic by comparison, but it really wasn't that bad.

Yeah, well, The Prestige was simply a better movie all-round, but my point about cheese stands.

Where's the genuine emotion in the Lord of the Rings?! I'm completely at a loss. Having Frodo give a pained look and Sam a distressed one is simply lame. There wasn't emotion – everything felt too big, too large, too grand. The books succeeded because Tolkien managed to take this huge tale and make it very personal on the chapter-level; you identified with the characters. I really feel that's missing in the movies.

Again, I'm not really an elitist nut (well I am ) who's obsessed about how they're not as good as the books; movies rarely are. I just didn't like the movies, and they disappointed me tremendously.

greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Didn't we already have this discussion?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

In my opinion, here are some of the things that were done much better in the movie. [...] Anyone else agree with me?

Yeah, especially about Theodan's death scene. Of course, they also made so many things worse...

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Let's see, one of the most symbolically imbued parts in the entire series (the forces of good and evil meeting under the ruined gate of the White City, the Horse King tragically betrayed by his mount, yadda yadda), and you don't even remember that at all. Gee. It's almost as if...the movies have tainted you!

greg

"But lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield was dimmed. The new morning was blotted from the sky. Dark fell about him. Horses reared and screamed. Men cast from the saddle lay grovelling on the ground. 'To me! To me!' cried Théoden. 'Up Eorlingas! Fear no darkness!' But Snowmane wild with terror stood up on high, fighting with the air, and then with a great scream he crashed upon his side: a black dart had pierced him. The king fell beneath him."

The horse gets shot with a dart. He does not betray Théoden.....

[Gee4orce]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

[long answer]


I don't think you can call LOTR a Hobbit sequel.

The Hobbit is a children's book with next to no mythology or history in it whatsoever. LOTR, on the other hand, is loaded with references to both.

This is true - that's my point. If you read some of the early chapters, they do read just like a sequel to the Hobbit - the Nazgul are just 'black riders', the hobbits are getting into all sorts scrapes and adventures just a few miles from home... It's clear to me that the book started as 'Hobbit 2', and then took a another path. Tolkein himself said as much. You can't read too much into this though, as I suspect a lot of books go through the same process, and the first couple of chapters were some of the last to be written I think.

Originally Posted by DeathToWindows 

Slight problem with this... remember the sword used to do in the Lord of the Nazgul? It is obtained in the barrow downs... so they are integral to the story (although I understand why they were cut from the film).

That was a bit lame in the film where Aragorn just seemed to pull the swords out of his bag. Perhaps he found them stashed in a secret location in Weathertop (a little scene showing him finding them would have been good). That way you can still say that the only reason the blade was able to hurt the Witch King was because it was an ancient Elven blade.

One thing the films got right was killing off Saruman. Having him reappear in the Shire as 'Sharkey' would have ruined the ending - and I never understood why that was in the books anyway. Odd.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

One thing the films got right was killing off Saruman. Having him reappear in the Shire as 'Sharkey' would have ruined the ending - and I never understood why that was in the books anyway. Odd.

What in the name of Sauron are you on?

The "Scouring of the Shire" chapter is there to illustrate that everybody gets affected by the forces of darkness, that even Hobbiton isn't magically immune to getting royally fucked up by some nasty old wizard with a grudge.

Killing Saruman off prematurely was the daftest decision ever.

[Gee4orce]

Eh ?

Here's a demi-god, one step down from the Valar, who was the head of his order and set to Middle Earth to oversee and mentor it - and the next minute he's a dirty old hobbit-fiddler who's gets his ass kicked by a bunch of midgets. What's that about ? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry ?

Best decision the films made was to kill him off at the end of The Two Towers.

The message in the films was much more poignant - that even if there are some places that remained untouched and unspoilt, they will never be the same because the people who return to them have changed. Remember, LoTR was written against the backdrop of WW2 - Britain was never invaded by the Nazis, but I bet it was never the same again in the eyes of the returning soldiers who'd seem the horrors of war.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

Eh ?

Here's a demi-god, one step down from the Valar, who was the head of his order and set to Middle Earth to oversee and mentor it - and the next minute he's a dirty old hobbit-fiddler who's gets his ass kicked by a bunch of midgets. What's that about ? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry ?

Like what?

The message in the films was much more poignant - that even if there are some places that remained untouched and unspoilt, they will never be the same because the people who return to them have changed. Remember, LoTR was written against the backdrop of WW2 - Britain was never invaded by the Nazis, but I bet it was never the same again in the eyes of the returning soldiers who'd seem the horrors of war.

Tolkien didn't like allegory.

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

"But lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield was dimmed. The new morning was blotted from the sky. Dark fell about him. Horses reared and screamed. Men cast from the saddle lay grovelling on the ground. 'To me! To me!' cried Théoden. 'Up Eorlingas! Fear no darkness!' But Snowmane wild with terror stood up on high, fighting with the air, and then with a great scream he crashed upon his side: a black dart had pierced him. The king fell beneath him."

The horse gets shot with a dart. He does not betray Théoden.....

Can someone explain this?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

Best decision the films made was to kill him off at the end of The Two Towers.

Wasn't he just left trapped in his tower?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Can someone explain this?

"Snowmane (d. TA 3019) Meara, the mount of King Theoden. He was slain by the Lord of the Nazgul in the Battle of the Pellenor Fields, and in his fall killed Theoden."

- Robert Foster: The Complete Guide to Middle Earth

[macgeek2005]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

"Snowmane (d. TA 3019) Meara, the mount of King Theoden. He was slain by the Lord of the Nazgul in the Battle of the Pellenor Fields, and in his fall killed Theoden."

- Robert Foster: The Complete Guide to Middle Earth

So like I said, the horse didn't conciously betray theoden.....

[ghporter]

While in general I feel that Hollywood makes lesser tellings of the stories when they make movies from books, Peter Jackson and company did something very different; they made THEIR IMPRESSION of what THEY THOUGHT was the CORE of the story. I think they could have actually done the whole thing-and it would have taken something like three weeks to watch. I'm thinking of maybe an intermission now and then for potty breaks and that's it! But to make movies that people would actually watch, they had to focus on a much more condensed part of the story.

Peter and the other writers have said that they were telling their own version of Tolkien's story, and I agree. The books are so engrossing because of the huge background Tolkien used, while the movies are engrossing because of the spectacle and thoroughness, as well as (in my opinion) excellent acting and direction, great effects and so on.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wasn't he just left trapped in his tower?

In the theatrical version. He falls off in the extended edition, as I recall.

[Gee4orce]

In the Extended versions he's knifed my Grima, and falls off the top of the tower, landing on a conveniently placed water wheel with even more conveniently placed large metal spikes. Ouch. I can't remember the cinema release versions now.

[GSixZero]

The movies stand on the books' shoulders, so I don't think it's fair to compare them straight away.