Do you think the lord of the Rings book is better than the film?

Well in my opinion I think that the book is actually better than the film itself even though, it was still very good because some parts in the films were missed out and also you get more description and you can imagine more when you read the book. Well tell me of what you think

[Lord of Angmar]

It is hard to compare a book to a movie. I try not to think of Peter Jackson's venture as an adaptation of the book but rather as an interpretation, since on several major points he digresses from the book and since (obviously), everyone has their own views of Middle Earth. For me personally, I enjoy reading the books more than I do watching the movies, because I feel closer with Tolkien's world when I read his own description of it.

[Eruwen]

Welcome to the Downs, Clover. I hate to say it but this thread has already been discussed before many times. But just for the point of this post, yes, I think the books are better than the movies...by far. Nothing can compare to Tolkien's original works...especially not a movie.

[Nehani]

The books are much better. Even though the movies sparked my love for Tolkien, I enjoyed haveing my own thoughts about each character/place. I thought that the movie did a very good job, don't get me wrong, it's just that, the book was better.

Nehani

[Elennar Starfire]

Of course! Books are always better than movies based on books, because they always leave parts out and the characters never look the same as in your imagination.

P.S. Clover, why did you write all in bold?

[Meela]

I prefer the movies for storytelling, simply because of the stunning visuals. The book allows you to stretch your imagination, but I couldn't have imagined it on such a grand scale.
I do prefer the books for detail, though. The historical depth is fascinating, and could never be fully explored in the movies.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I think the books are better. They let you form your own images in your mind. Books kind of let you personalize how you see the story. Books also have kind of a realism to them. I can just feel as if I'm there when something is happening. As for the Movies, it sort of seems corny. And it's kind of hard to get that aura from reading the books when watching the movies. And the actors can have an effect on how you see the movie, if they have been in other movies. The Books are something that I have become more attached to than the movie. And I think that one reason is because of the length and detail that you get in the book. I just appreciate the story more. Watching FotR will take only 3 1/2 hours, however, reading FotR will take a week or so.

[Eglaladiel]

I love the books more than the movies. I'm a bigger fan of Tolkien than of the movies. dont get me wrong, i think that the movies are amazing, and it was a great adaptation of the books, and i personally think it would not have been a better movie if anybody else but Peter Jackson had directed it. He was a fan of the book, and i think he did an amazing job. But you cant really compare a book to a movie, because you know that a movie can have limitations, like time... you cant have a 4 hour film, because you would be sitting around all day. i think he didnt really take anything away from the movie...except Tom Bambodil and the Barrow Downs (sniffle, sniffle). the book is good because you make up your own Middle Earth. you make up how your hobbits look, how the orcs look, how everything looks. It's your Middle Earth in a way. The movie is good because everything is there for you, and all you have to do is watch and absorb it.
What i am trying to say is that it would be impossible to choose which is better. the book is more for people who like to brew up their own Middle Earth, and the movies are for those who cant sit through a long book and like action...
im sorry, im rambling...but you did ask!!!
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Novberaid]

The books are better, without question.
There is no way Mr. Jackson could put all that into even three movies. I have seen both movies so many times I don't even know the count. I read the books every year.
(For many years now.) Try reading the book again and see how much you may have missed, then read the Silmarillion. I read each book
once and pass it on to someone else. Many copies are out there.

[Iarwain]

That's a very funny question, my friend, very very funny. Suddenly I feel like the contents of my stomach are going to spill out all over the keyboard. We should have a green "graemlin".

I'm going to look at this in a funny way, and answer sarcastically, to prevent the wreckage of a third keyboard, so:

I loved da film millions of bajillions of times better den dat stewped bole of krape whasisname m8 up like 4t yeerz ego.

I think that sums up my feelings quite well. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Feeling Green,
Iarwain

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Lush]

Book? What book? You mean they wrote a book of the movie???!!!

[Scott]

Come now Lush. You didn't hear about it? It was all the rage. Some say that PJ may have even made the movie based off of the books... far out, huh.

[Beren87]

I don't think posts should be made in all bold. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Luinalatawen]

I second that, Beren87.

The book is most definitely better than the film, although to compare the two is like comparing water and fire. The movie is merely PJ's adaptation/idea of a film version. He changed too many things and left out even more so that I personally don't think that the two should be compared as much as they are. But I know how hard it is to ignore all of it! It's impossible, especially for us Tolkien fans. Even though the filmmakers of book-based movies say they don't want to upset the book's fans with changes and eliminations of scenes/characters/etc, they always manage to do just that.

The films are wonderful. I was certain at first that they ould never find a cast who could portray the characters as they should be portrayed and that no special effects would ever come close to caturing Middle Earth. I was relieved when I heard Christopher Lee was going to be in it.

When I saw the films, I was amzed at how well they were made and how they captured the spirit of the books, if not the detail.

However, for me, nothing will ever match the wonder and awe I feel when I read the books. The films are as perfect as films can ever be, but the books still eclipse them.

[Dragon Elf odin Ragnorock]

I would have to say they both have their strights and weeknesses.

the movies give great detail on what the books don't, but the books have otherthings that the movies leave out because it might seem boring to go though all of what the books have the charactors doing.

[Snowdog]

Of course the book is better because its the real thing. All the movie is is an interpretation of the book according to one man.

[Kaiserin]

The original books are ALWAYS better than the movie adaptations - that's my opinion, at least. The LOTR movies were great, of course, but they don't even come close to the splendour of the books. I'm sure a lot of you out there would agree. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

A lot of people prefer the movies of course. Maybe I'm arrogant to say this - but the wonder of the book isn't just because of the skill of the author; much of it depends on the reader's imagination... meaning to say if somebody says that "the books are s2pid" then he's probably the stupid one because his brain is too puny to contain all the wonderful stuff Tolkien intended to convey. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] (I'm just being arrogant, of course!) The movies were just interpretations of something that already exists, right? But then, they're the interpretation of another Tolkien fan, (PJ)so I'm sure PJ didn't at all intend to "massacre" the work of the master.

[hobbit punk]

Books. Hands down. When I read the books for the first time, I read them without any knowledge of what they were about. I experienced all the shock and surprise of the characters as they did. Never has one literary work made me feel as though I was right there with them, then LOTR. I then went on to read more of Tolkien's books and have since then gained a much deeper and more detailed perspective of Tolkien and his works. The movies were good efforts but can never come to stand next to the original works.

[Marroc Underhill]

Yes, the book is better than the movie.The movie helps with the visionary parts, though.
Some places could be hard to picture if you are reading the book and the movie helps with that. But they could have at least put
the Barrow-Downs in the movie. They could
have at least put in a little clip of the Hobbits walking through some foggy hills or something insted of going from Buckle Berry Fary all the way to Bree. But Thats just my opinion.

[Ghostblade]

I've read the book as many times as I have seen either movie, and they both pale in comparison to the world created by the book. Plus, the book is always better than the movie. :evil

[THE Ka]

I truly beleive that the book is better...And the lord of the rings isn't the only great novel to be trased by hollywood...(and i saw that in light terms). But, i like the fact that this time went lotr was made into a film it was done so that nothing important or critical to the plot of the story was left out. the book would have to be better in my opinon, because it's the real MCcoy... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Noldorin King]

I don't think there's ever been a better movie than its book version...and sorry to say that LotR movies are the best examples of my disappointed statement...they give mee a feeling that the scriptwriter never even read the book...just kidding...he's maybe just obssessed with Arwen...

[ArathorofBarahir]

I can't decide which one I like better. I mean they are both so awesome. I mean the LOTR movies are my absolute favorite movies, and of course the book is a classic.

[Yavanna228]

I probably shouldn't even be replying, since I won't be expressing anything new. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I do like the books better because they have such depth that the movies can't even begin to plumb. As far as movies go, though, I did enjoy them and think they were well made, but not really on the plane of the trilogy. I really don't think one should expect them to be.
Peace

I'm real thankful that the movies were made, for had they not graced the big screen, I would never have read the books. I am a little disappointed that some major changes were made in the movie e.g. Arwen's rescue of Froddo instead of Glorfindel, but on the whole I think PJ did a pretty spectacular job. It was good to be able to imagine the characters in the book as those on film.

Cheers

[Liriodendron]

Book better! MUCH better. The reason the movies are so good, is because the books are so great! A win/win.

[Angadraug]

Definitly the book, not because of how the movie is different, but because of the amount of information there is in the book. Also the book takes longer to get through so you get much more Middle Earth experience.

[Gorwingel]

The books, of course! Because they are amazing, captivating, masterpieces of literature. The movies are just really well done visual adaptations of Tolkien's work. Not an original story. And nothing can compare to someone coming up and creating their own original story (and world) from scratch.

[Shenaran]

The books by far.... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Theoden]

Its true that the films were very good and that it helps you imagine the surroundings if you re-read the books, but the books are by far better. Also, since some parts were missed out there is more adventure in the books. Besides, in books you can imagine everything the way you want [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Orofaniel]

Of course! Books are always better than movies based on books, because they always leave parts out and the characters never look the same as in your imagination.

I quite agree. The books are always more detailed and therefore much better in my opinion. I liked the film, but I didn't like that they let out characters such as Tom Bombadil and Erkenbrand.

In the books you also get another feeling. After you've read it, you feel that you know the characters as they were your best friends, you don't get that feeling after watching the film. I at least, don't get that feeling. But that counts for all books they make films of.

So, I would definitely say that I liked the LotR book way better than the film(s). (Still waiting for what the third film has to offer.... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] )


EDIT:BTW, Theoden I love your avatar....The one ring moving around, eh? Neat! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Orofaniel ]

[Jack]

I like them both in there own places! I mean sometimes its easier to watch a movie... but the books will always be better.

In many ways, they overcome eachother in greatness. So actually, they neutralize and are equal. But, one simple fact is, the books are ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, better than the movies. Books allow you to imagine. Books were the televisions and movies before these things were invented. Come on, use your brains, people! Book is mightier than the movie.

[Ainaserkewen]

People say they can't be compared, well I beg to differ. I'm one of those people who always see the movie first(Harry Potter, LOTR, Anne of Green Gables etc. etc.) and am absolutely blown away by the story. But then I get curious, wanting to know backgrounds, details, life stories, whatever.
Books are obviously better at voicing the above. How could one cram all of that information into a movie they hope everyone will at least sit through. It's hard(except if you count "Dune" but that's for diehards)
So for me, I believe that our beloved books are worth more to read than the movies are to see, besides, Tolkien had thousands of fans before the outbreak of the movies. I'm not saying I don't adore the movies(and its yummy actors) but I always find books more satisfying. Unless of course the book was based on a movie, I really can't stand those.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

No-one that visits barrowdowns.com is going to say that the book is inferior to the movies.

If they did they would probably be hounded out, and deservedly so! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ainur]

Books are usually better than their movie counter-parts, except when the book was based on the movie. (Those are usually horrible) These movies are excellent adaptations of an exceptional story. The few changes that P.J. made are (in my opinion) the weakest flaws in the movies. (Arwen is half mortal and should fear the Nazgul; Frodo knows enough elvish--both Quenya and Sindarin--that he shouldn't have to ask the word for "friend" but Merry should. etc.) We all know what changes were made. In every case of every change I noticed from the book, no matter how minor, it weakened the film because it fell off from the story-logic that Tolkien originally envisioned.

But they are still great films. Most film makers would consider Tolkien unfilmable, impossible but P.J. succeeded in creating some great movies out of this "impossible" story. But they can never be as good as the book. Especially when changes are made.

[Laivine]

Well in my opinion I think that the book is actually better than the film [...]

The book is actually better?? Oh dear, I must have missed something.. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Iarwain]

Poor clover, we must have sacred it away with all of our ranting... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Iarwain

Movies are generally summaries of the books they are based on. . .the important stuff is there and the lesser events are cut out. OF COURSE SOMETIMES THEY PUT PEOPLE WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T BE AND HAVE THEM DIE! poor Haldir [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]