Movies v book

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



coolmovies
Ok which do u prefar the book or the films ? I prefar the films becouse they bring Lotr to life .

masterkit
Originally posted by coolmovies
Ok which do u prefar the book or the films ? I prefar the films becouse they bring Lotr to life .

Grammer, dude. I prefer the movies, but the books are a close runner up.

Nazgul lord
Originally posted by masterkit
Grammer, dude. I prefer the movies, but the books are a close runner up.

lol, i was gonna post the same thing about the grammer.

im gonna say for me the books win hands down no question.

exanda kane
Originally posted by masterkit
Grammer, dude. I prefer the movies, but the books are a close runner up.

It's grammar, dude.

Nazgul lord
laughing laughing too funny, even tho i spelt it wrong to its stil funny

chillmeistergen
Books hands down. The movies were good but nowhere near as good

ADarksideJedi
The books.I like seeing the chactors like I want to see them.They were pretty close in the movie like I see them.But movies attend to spoil the book.jm

vanice
the books. all the way...........

Willaume
The books are incomparable. I enjoyed the films, yes, but they were too much a "Hollywoodism." The books have that much more depth to them.

thefallen544
Personally I like the books a lot more.

ESB -1138
The books offer a lot more context then the movies do. I perfer the books a lot more.

ADarksideJedi
I think my favorite of all of them have to be "The Fellowship of the Rings" it is when you first met Strider!He is the best!jm

Mandos
I think 1000 threads were created with the same title...

The books for me stick out tongue

Hey, adarksidejedi, my name in your sig is cut in half!

ADarksideJedi
Yea sorry about that!It is sort of long and had to move to the other side.Sorry!jm

Quinlan-Vos
Originally posted by Willaume
The books are incomparable. I enjoyed the films, yes, but they were too much a "Hollywoodism." The books have that much more depth to them. 100% agreed! The ridiculously extended battles (Pelennor and Hornburg were both 1 chapter battles in the books, not hour long shitfests), the whiny Elrond crap, the random focus on the Uruks... so much was pulled from Jackson's hairy arse... oh, and Sauron looked pretty stupid in physical form... could've kept it subtle and not shown him, used a shadow or whatever and never actually shown him... on another rant... Jackson had Aragorn turn into a murdering little prick with the Mouth of Sauron, and what the hell gave him the idea of having Aragorn fight Sauron??? Thank god that was cut! They were good films, but...
Rant over!

exanda kane
I don't see how you canrant about the films.

Peter Jackson done a wonderful job, and the films should be cherished, not slandered. Given, it's not a 100% adaption of the book, but books and films are two very different mediums, and it would not have worked any other way.

Of course, it's very easy for me to say that, but then again it's very easy for you to say what you said; Peter Jackson was the one who dealt with the compromises and produced a trilogy of films worthy of their namesake.

chillmeistergen
It's my belief that those who say the movies are better, haven't read the book.

exanda kane
But you could be proven wrong easily if someone has read the book and prefers the films? roll eyes (sarcastic)

chillmeistergen
I could, yes. Though if that person does surface, they are strange.

exanda kane
I will find one.

chillmeistergen
I look foward to hearing their views.

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by exanda kane
I don't see how you canrant about the films.

Peter Jackson done a wonderful job, and the films should be cherished, not slandered. Given, it's not a 100% adaption of the book, but books and films are two very different mediums, and it would not have worked any other way.

Of course, it's very easy for me to say that, but then again it's very easy for you to say what you said; Peter Jackson was the one who dealt with the compromises and produced a trilogy of films worthy of their namesake.

Jackson is a good director and the movies were quite good.But the books are alot beter.That is all we are saying!jm cool

Spidervlad
I like the movies and I read the whole trilogy. However the books and the movies are very evenly match. The context of the books is much larger than the movies, but isn't it supposed to be that way?

I love the movies just a little bit better than the books. To tell you the truth, I didn't like how slow paced the action was in the books, and when it did come to a fight it really ended too fast.

Akhnar
Movies r definetly better becuz that way u can see the image of the story not just imagine it while reading a book but even so a book is good becuz somethimes they dont show u all the information in the movie only in the book but still I would go with movie better 2 see the image than just imagine it if its a good one. LOL !!!!!

Akhnar
Originally posted by Spidervlad
I like the movies and I read the whole trilogy. However the books and the movies are very evenly match. The context of the books is much larger than the movies, but isn't it supposed to be that way?

I love the movies just a little bit better than the books. To tell you the truth, I didn't like how slow paced the action was in the books, and when it did come to a fight it really ended too fast.

The Secret Fire
Originally posted by Almighty Bauer
... oh, and Sauron looked pretty stupid in physical form... could've kept it subtle and not shown him, used a shadow or whatever and never actually shown him...

Ok I can respect your opinion but you need to get one fact right:

1) Jackson DID NOT design Sauron's physical form. It was mainly done by John Howe and the Weta Workshop crew here in NZ. He only gave the final "ok". If you have a problem with it, be productive and:

a) Conceptualize a better version - I dare you try!
b) Go tell them what you think of it instead of moaning about it! (Here I'm even giving you a head start: Contact John Howe here: http://www.john-howe.com/contact.php and Weta Workshop here: http://www.wetaworkshop.co.nz/contact)
c) Do a) then show it to b). You shouldn't be prepared to judge so harshly unless you know a better job could've been done!

You can't change what already is but at least you'll be whinging to the right people instead of blindly here! The best of luck! smile

fini
The books by far.

So many scenes were ridiculously powerful in the book and were so muted in the film. While the film did give us visuals and audio, nothing compares to the journey your imagination takes with the book.

Sam fighting of shelob was great in the movie, but have you read that scene??? Mannnn it brings tears to the eye.

When we think Frodo is dead, it takes hours of reading to find out that he is alive, in the movie it was mere minutes. Nothing could beat that suspense.

One of the few things that the movie did, was made me wish that Tolkien hadn't killed of Boromir so early. If he hadn't been corrupted by the ring, could you imagine him in battles??? Damn!!!!

addicted2flicks
i'd rather see the movie... i'm the type who has all the time inthe world to imagine plots and characters... i rather grab a bucket of pop corn and pop some soda... what nice way to relax...

coolmovies
I agree the sound and vision of lotr is amazing

Rajendra
I enjoy movie because of the visual effects and sound effects.

coolmovies
cool

Cap'n Happy
Well, as any reader knows, the depth and subtleties of a good book offer a better understanding of a story than what film can generally provide. You get a descriptive quality in reading that is powerful, and YOU yourself are required to create the images in your own mind (in other-words, you end up making your own movie inside your own head). A book can also take you inside the mind of the characters in a manner that movies often don't (or can't). Finally, books often have much more story in them then a film can cover (even long film's like the LOTR trilogies). Didn't every reader of the books miss Tom Bombadil and Goldberry in the movies? Or the scouring of the Shire? Sure, everyone enjoys movies being made of our favorite books- assuming they are done well! But you really can't beat a good book.

ADuarte03
well im half way through the two towers (book) and this is my first time reading the trilogy. im kind of finding it hard to get through them...i mean i love tolkien but they can sometimes be boring/drawn out. that is why i like the movies better...they are just as, if not more, exciting and it only takes 11 hours to watch the entire trilogy!!

Incanus
When we think Frodo is dead, it takes hours of reading to find out that he is alive, in the movie it was mere minutes. Nothing could beat that suspense.

Hes right books win by far. Lurtz didnt even EXIST in the movies.

XanatosForever
Originally posted by Kovacs86
100% agreed! The ridiculously extended battles (Pelennor and Hornburg were both 1 chapter battles in the books, not hour long shitfests), the whiny Elrond crap, the random focus on the Uruks... so much was pulled from Jackson's hairy arse... oh, and Sauron looked pretty stupid in physical form... could've kept it subtle and not shown him, used a shadow or whatever and never actually shown him... on another rant... Jackson had Aragorn turn into a murdering little prick with the Mouth of Sauron, and what the hell gave him the idea of having Aragorn fight Sauron??? Thank god that was cut! They were good films, but...
Rant over!

The bold I have issue with. Certainly, the battle were chronicled in a much shorter style in the books, but see...here's the thing...they're battle...it's...war, y'know? Battles don't tend to end quickly unless one side is horrible outskilled or outnumbered with no hope of reinforcements. It was nice to have the key points of battles focused on in the books, but the reality of watching it in real time, the movies did a good job with it. I believe that ends my little rant as well. no expression

Incanus
Dont get me wrong tho, the battles were fun to watch. But the thing is, they wernt really like that. Theoden if i remember right never said to reform the line and charge the Mumaks. I also think that the Witch King went to the GATE not the 3rd or 4th lvl to confront Gandalf. And really, it was the Witch King that used sorcery to make the Gate fall. Grond couldnt do it alone...... Then he rode in alone with a hood on his head. " And he cast back the hood and lo! there was a kingly crown, with nothing to sit upon." So that didnt happen. Sorry, but the books were way better in the fact that they cant go off if they are just remade because they are the original works. The movies were overmade with alot of errors.


i like my new signature =-)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.