LOTR: The books v the movies

[Zmid]

Following the direction this thread was taking and because I don't think anyone has actually bitten the bullet and made a poll asking this, I've decided to do so myself.

 

My own view is that Jackson did a good job given the constraints he was under, but the films simply don't measure up to the books, because they rather effectively build up a picture of a complete world by giving a hell of a lot of background detail, whilst at the same time not turning into a history lecture.

[Shadow of the Fallen]

In my personal opinion (which is based largly on misinformation, lack of information, and otherwise useless information) they both rocked..

 

The movies were excellent for being movies. You can tell something to be somthing its not - which is why little Billy's frog does not fly - and for being movies, you cannot rule out the LotR as one of the best movie trilogies of all time.

 

As far as books go, the LotR delivers. Few books can match the depth and plot structure built into the tale of middle-earth.

 

Other then that, it was stated somewhere along the line that movies go through a long chain of audiences that near to compleatly destroy the original plot/storyline and it has to appeal to a wider audience then those of us who have read the books (very few people have, realativly speaking) in order to make money.

 

It's a win - loss situation, personally I prefer a good read only slightly more then I like watching the movies.. As I said, more depth.

[Peregrine]

Who the hell is this Tolkein guy?

[Breton Thief Oriana]

way to go, make a mockkery of the poll :P! I did the same thing. Couldnt finsish any book, let alone these.

[Stefanzhr]

LOCK IT NOW BEFORE ALL ANGBAND BRAKES LOOSE! ! ! ! ! ! !

[Icefiddell]

To be honest i dont think you can compare a book to a film they are two completly different things, they both make you enjoy them in different way. But they were both amazing. I think tolkien was good at making it but peter jackson was better at portraying all three books the way he did. Yes i know feel free to throw as much abuse and flaming as you like :) lol

[Malchik]

I go with the previous posters. Two different genres are not precisely comparable. I thoroughly enjoyed the book the first time I read it but unlike some of you I couldn't keep re-reading it. The heavy quasi-moralising subtext that creeps in increasingly with The Two Towers and The Return of the King I now find tedious. But he was one of the first, if not the first, to spark a modern revival in epic fantasy and deserves his accolades for that.

 

It was much of that subtext that Peter Jackson excised in the films, generally making them much tauter than the books. For that I was grateful. I enjoyed the films too, especially the first. If the purists want the films to have the subtext I think they would be very hard to watch. Perhaps some televisual medium might be better where there could be 50 one hour instalments.

[SilvuruAgnost]

I liked the book the most becouse tolkien was a very good writer. He wanted to create a mythologi that england never had.

 

Peter Jakson did a great job. But it cant match the book. :nazgul:

[m_gobes]

I liked the movies but they couldn't offer the entire story (e.g. Tom Bombadil) he was cool but I can see why Peter Jackson didn't include him cause it would add time and he isn't an "essential" character. I liked the books better only because they are the original. if the movie was the original I would probably like it better.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Ok... I didn't vote because there isn't an option which expresses my opinion precisely.

 

I liked the first film in the trilogy. The introductory scene is stunning, the initial characterization well handled - though Merry and Pippin, IMO, were allowed to slip into caricature -, the set designs - especially of Moria and Lothlorien - beautifully done. While it was a pity that the Barrow-downs were omitted I can see why it was necessary. Rivendell, I thought, portrayed the fading of the Elves wonderfully.

So, for the first movie, I'd say Peter Jackson did a great job.

 

Sadly, I was disappointed with the sequels - to me it appeared as though the trilogy became more and more dumbed down. I wonder how much of this was caused by financial backers exerting pressure, considering the first instalment as too highbrow perhaps?

 

The character changes, IMO, were unwarranted. Gimli in a comic role - urgh. The dwarf-tossing jokes.... I dare say that 'toss' has perhaps not quite the same meaning outside the UK vernacular.... Legolas skating down the steps at Helm's Deep on a shield.... pass the barfbag, please. Elves at Helm's Deep.... o....k..... - Haldir's death was just tacky. Aragorn falling off a cliff and the dream sequence....oh dear. Where did that come from? As for Arwen, I don't agree with Greywolf's assessment that this was done to portray her as a modern female etc - I think it was a cynical ploy to give their leading actress a greater role - and of course, no movie is complete without the obligatory love interest.

But the worst 'crime', IMO, of the second movie, was the portrayal of Faramir. To some degree this was rectified in the extended edition, but I still think that changing Faramir's character in such a way was unwarranted.

 

 

And then the abomination of the 3rd movie. Obviously even the second movie was way too demanding for the poor cinema audiences, so all subtlety goes out of the window. The Paths of the Dead - oh my. Awful isn't the word. The portrayal of Denethor - was it necessary to turn him into quite such a caricature? And then Gandalf's fight with Denethor....to paraphrase Kryten from Red Dwarf, I think at that point my intelligence circuits melted. It was tacky in the extreme. Eowyn's character - as even my kids pointed out, she looked afraid when riding into battle... which was rather different from her character in the book.

Then, the big battle. The Nazguls were reduced to some equivalent of fighter pilots. What happened to the fear they inspired, which broke the defenders' will? That alone to me was a major, unnecessary change. And Minas Tirith crumbled all too easily, I thought.

And wth was Frodo doing, sending Sam away???

I could go on.... about the risibly small army riding up to the Morannon to challenge Sauron, the lamentable omission of Saruman from the movie, the omission of the scouring of the Shire.... without it, IMO the film lost a lot compared to the books.

 

I wish the standards of the first film could have been maintained throughout the trilogy and the dumbing down process avoided :(

 

And to those who say that films and books are two separate things:

- I don't mind changes to the plot where they are justified in order to clarify the storyline or condense an excessively long story - what I do object to is dumbing down

- it is possible to make good films of good books

- if you cannot do a literary work justice in your film adaptation, make a film of something else :P

 

And to finish, here's something you may find amusing :D

 

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mollyring...raith/1826.html

 

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mollyring...raith/5635.html