Books Vs. Movies
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, and I have mixed feelings. I believe that the books are better in some ways, and the movies better in other. To me the books went into depth, sparked my imagination and my interest. The movies helped me to create the image of LotR, and led me to understand some of the spots that were hard to read, or just plain boring in the books. As I said, I have mixed feelings, so tell me what you think!
Yea I completely understand what you are saying. I actually enjoy the books more than the movies. But the movies are GREAT too. I am more of a book person myself. But I truly enjoyed watching the movies. The newer movies are much better than the older animated movies too.
They are both GREAT!!!!!!!! (yes, those ! were neccessary....) I loved both the movies and the books. I would have to lean towards the books as being better...they have more meat in them as one might say. More content, detail and you are able to understand them better. The movies are great but left out some of my favourite parts like Sharkie and the Shire in book 3.....i was disappointed but what can ya do? Its still good.
yup! they movies are AWESOME! but books are some what better! reason: they didn't kill of my favorite character when he wasn't even supposed to be at that battle (Helm's Deep) (100 "points" to whoever can guess my fave!) and of course the books had my second favorite characters in them, and didn't cut them out like they did in ROTK... course i just like to complain hehe
Well, I thought the books were absolutely wonderful, and I really liked the first two movies (partially cause they were great and partially cause they held really well with the books). The third movie really made me angry though. There were so many little things that they could have changed to make the movie just that much closer to the books, most of those being changes that I can't understand why they felt the need to change it. Also Pippin saying that the eagles were coming was extremely aggravating to me since that was my favorite part in the books. I cried! I even took a moment of silence for Pippin cause I really thought he was dead. Also, not explaining the whole thing where the ring-bearers left for the Grey Havens was odd. They never said why Frodo and the rest of them were going. They just were. Well, those are mostly just my complaints. To sum up, I liked the books better. (Coulda just said that...) Though, I have to say that the movies were very good. Everyone I know who saw the movie but never read the books loved it, so, yes, good movie, but I still glare at the third one when I can.
I know what you meen, both movies and books have different parts, some cut out, some added, etc. But in Harry Potter Chamber Of Secrets, I thought the book ruled over the movie. Yeah, so some books are better, some movies are better, some are equal. I get your drift.
Jesse Hamshaw
With LoTR, the movies were never even meant to approach the books. There is no possible way. It would take 30 or 40 hours worth of movie to even include (in passing) the many rich events described in the books.
More than anything, I think that the movies were a tribute to the books. An attempt to show one person's view of what the land was like, who the characters were, etc.
Think of it. Tolkein lived in England, in Oxfordshire. I have been to a small valley that I am positive was his model for the Shire. It is near Banbury. When you enter it, you see this extensive vale, with a single hill popping up in the middle of it. The first time I saw it, I knew it was Bag End.
The movies were all filmed in New Zealand. Perfect place for the mountain scenes. But if you think about it, there weren't many overviews of the Shire.