I liked how some scenes in the movies were better in the books and vise versa. Like the Witch-King and Gandalf was better in the movie. I liked how the Rohirrim charged the Mumakil in the movies instead of avoiding them due to their horses.
Gender: Male Location: In the Woods between the Worlds
Are you talking about their confrontation in the film? I really didnt like it. Too quick and not expalined very well!
On the whole, the books are much much much better, but the films bring it to lofe for everybody to see, and so, have good points and bad points! But the films are still amazing!
__________________ *There is only one Lord of the Rings, only one...*
I read the books at least once a year. I mean I just love Lord of the Rings. I do say I like the books better but somethings in the movies are better then the books. Like in the movies no Tom Bombadill at all. Yeah! You have to admit that was the slowest chapter in any novel.
Gender: Female Location: in Lothlórien with my best friend
i love the movies the most but the only book i thought was pretty good was the third one cus it was a lot more exciting and didnt have a lot of just random talking.
So you think you can read half a book and be qualified to have an opinoin on if its good or not? you have got to be kidding. There are movie fans. And there are book fans. There are book fans that liked the movies, and there are movie fans that liked the book. But deep down, you're one of the other, and really no one's qualified to decide which is better. Everyone can think what they like about it. But at least read soemthing before you judge it, eh?
Random talking?? Because clearly a plot line is now defined as "random talking" Did you even PAY ATTENTION to what they were saying. Because if you like..actually read stuff closely, the story is really complicated and beautiful, not just a bunch of action sequences slung together and put on a film to make money. And there couldn't have even been a third book without all the setting up of the first two books.
Don't leave. You actually said some things that I couldn't have said better myself. Unlike half the crap coming out now a days that focus on a simple story the Lord of the Rings went in depth and made a very unique story with rich characters and places. Tolkien just didn't have Helm's Deep and then Minas Tirith and then the Black Gate and call it a day.
He put us in Middle-Earth. It felt as though you were among the Fellowship in the mines of Moria. Tolkien paints a picture in your mind on what is happening. The book is pure art. That's all I can call it. Art. Tolkien made something that just didn't make stuff up as he went alone. He worked on Middle-Earth his entire life to make the Lord of the Rings a story worth telling over and over and over again.
Most people complain about the book mainly because their reading level isn't high enough to really understand what is being said. All of Tolkien's works are like this. I can't put the book down once I get going. It draws you into the characters; each different with unique aspects and abilities and strengths and weaknesses.
I for one see Tolkien as an idol to help me be inspired to write creative things and to think outside the box. It was said that putting the Battle of Isengard as a flashback would be a bad choice but Tolkien did it and he made it work. Tolkien is the greatest author who has ever lived. His mind was full of creative thoughts that allowed him to create a world, language, and even a religion.
J.R.R. Tolkien is someone who gave us these gifts of Middle-Earth. And it all started with a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins.
I have to give the Lord of the Rings:
Two thumbs up.
Personally I was gutted that Jackson didnt include the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman. The one where Gandalf snaps Sarumans staff and Saruman fless to the top of the tower. I dont remember exactly how it went but it was my fav part of the book. And because Saruman is my favourite character he could have used some more screen time.
Saruman rules. No doubt about that. What I loved about him in the book is that he used Treebeard's weakness so that he can become free. Treebeard hates to keep things in cages and Saruman used that to get free. Shame they killed him at the beginning of Return of the King and then they don't have him in the threater version.
Saruman was wise, smart, and powerful but in the end it was his desire to take the One Wing which led to his downfall like to many others.
I believe the part you refer to about Sarumans staff being shattered is this passage:
'Behold, I am not Gandalf the Grey, whom you betrayed. I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death. You have no colour now, and I cast you from the order and from the Council'
He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saurman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saurman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet.'Go!' said Gandalf. With a cry Saurman fell back and crawled away.
With such writing I find it impossible not to love the books before the films everytime.
__________________ Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes a play of the deeds of his father may do so without without thought of mockery, but because he is the son of his father.
Gender: Female Location: Leaving hometown-heading for Bree
alright elessea-NO NEED TO BE RUDE ABOUT IT! just cuz you think its some sappy beautiful story doesnt mean everyone else thinks that-maybe lotrtres3414 just liked the action scenes-so dont go sayin mean things about OUR OPINIONS-and the reason I was compairing them is cuz i think the movies are WAY BETTER! y would i try to read the books when i think they are boring. so MY OPINION is that the MOVIES ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS! and if you dont like being here, then dont come
KMC Community Forums
Jun 20th, 2006 09:13 PM
