LOTR Books vs movies

[Androxine Vortex]

I vote for the movies. Yes I know there was a lot that was changed but every time I hear the Shire theme... it gets to me *begins crying

I didn't really like the way that the books were written (ducks from computer monitor to avoid being stoned to death) I don't like how Sam kept calling Frodo his master. There was just a lot of things that I didn't like and I really can't put a finger on why. Some parts just read funny to me and I'm not surprised since Mr. Tolkien was such a linguistic person.

So what say you?

 

[Devor]

I enjoyed the books, but I don't find myself wanting to reread them. The movies, on the other hand, I want to "tril up" every three years or so. So based on that alone, I voted movies.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I end up watching the movies like twice a month XD that might be unhealthy...nah.

 

[Ireth]

What, no option for both? XD

 

[Phietadix]

I happen to like J.R.R. Tolkien's (and C.S. Lewis's) style of writing. I may be the only one voting books. I really hate it when movie makers change anything. Despite the fact that I can see why they do. I do enjoy the films too. But the books are better.

 

[Alexandra]

I happen to like J.R.R. Tolkien's (and C.S. Lewis's) style of writing. I may be the only one voting books.

No, you're not. I loved the Rings movie trilogy but still think the books were better. Likewise, I'm wired to HBO's Game of Thrones but George Martin's books are better. Movies show me places, books take me to places.

 

[Phietadix]

Wow! That poll changed quickly.

 

[Graylorne]

The books, undoubtly. The films are great, but they're not Tolkien. They're someone else's interpretation and I prefer my own.

 

[Meyer]

I was very displeased with The Hobbit and upon reflection found a great deal in Jackson's vision of The Lord of the Rings that failed to mesh properly with Tolkien's creation. It will probably be the best translation of LotR to the screen that we will ever witness outside of perhaps a television series, but that does not mean I have a great love for it. The visuals were impressive, but the tone felt very off at times.

 

[Chilari]

I found the books difficult to read; some bits were downright dull and I skipped pages at a time. Admittedly I was reading them ages 12 to 13, but the fact I've not actually read them since - though I still own them, even after 3 bookshelf purges that got rid of several hundred books in total - is a testament to how daunting the prospect of reading them again is. I will read them again, that's for certain - I've got a project I want to work on next year involving LoTR - but the time investment, and the knowledge that some of it is so slow, have stopped me from reading them a second time before now.

To be honest, though, I think LOTR hype is a bit over the top. Yes, it's an important work that really launched fantasy as a genre, alongside the works of Tolkien's contemporaries, but I don't think the books are actually as accomplished as everyone seems to assume. Important to the genre isn't the same as high quality. That's what my project next year is going to look at in greater detail.

 

[Nihal]

I liked the movies, but I felt they were too rushed. I just couldn't get as immersed in them as I did with the books. (I was eleven when I devoured did read them xD)

Yeah, some things bother me too, like the excessive "Master" thing, but the descriptions aren't one of these things. It's not even near the description of a rock in the top of a mountain in Silmarillion.

I liked The Hobbit movie precisely because it takes its time. I guess my expectations were so low that I got pleasantly surprised by this one.

Truth to be told, I'm rereading LOTR now, hehe.

 

[teacup]

I've not read lotr yet (it's on my list) but I'm currently reading The Hobbit. I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I just find it hard to "get into." I don't have that feeling of wanting to read it all the time, instead I'm pretty much forcing myself to pick it up. I will finish it, I'll just set some time out to power through it at some point.

So based off of The Hobbit I'd definitely say the movies right now. (But I don't know, the lotr books could be amazing.)

 

[Steerpike]

I can't think of many examples where I found a movie version to be better than the books, and this is no exception. I like the movies a lot, but they're not even in the same league as the books.

 

[CupofJoe]

The books have Tom Bombadil and the films don't, so the books win hands down...

 

[Mindfire]

I'm gonna go against the grain and say I like the movies more.

To clarify: I think Tolkien's works are classics of the genre and some of the greatest works of fantasy to date. Definitely in my top 3 authors. But just because he's good doesn't mean his works quite match up with my tastes. Tolkien may be the best, my personal favorite work of fantasy is Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Not quite as high-brow, but it's packed full of awesomeness. Which is why I like the movies more. I can't think of anything cut from the books that I actually missed in the films. And because they cut out a lot of the extraneous details and slow bits, it's a bit closer to what my personal tastes are. The plot moves along better, they packed in more action, and the big thing: it has a higher awesomeness/time ratio. They took everything I loved about the books and distilled it into its pure essence. The Hobbit films look equally awesome, though Erebor was a little surreal compared to everything seen in the LOTR films up to this point. After the Hobbit films are done, I can't wait to see what they do with the Silmarillion.

EDIT: In reflection, it seems that the reason I prefer the films is the same reason why others don't.

 

[Mindfire]

The books have Tom Bombadil and the films don't, so the books win hands down...

That's actually one of the things I'm glad they cut. Tom Bombadil's existence...

Not to mention his annoying song.

 

[CupofJoe]

That's actually one of the things I'm glad they cut. Tom Bombadil's existence...

Not to mention his annoying song.

I'll give you the song was not to everyone's taste [but I kind of like it]... but I liked the questions the existence of TB raised... Middle earth was a far more fantastical place with TB and a little less with him excised...

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, definitely better with Bombadil.

 

[Mindfire]

I'll give you the song was not to everyone's taste [but I kind of like it]... but I liked the questions the existence of TB raised... Middle earth was a far more fantastical place with TB and a little less with him excised...

I can understand that. The problem is that he just doesn't fit anywhere within the scope of Tolkien's mythos. Fans have been trying to figure out just what exactly he is for decades now. If he felt like he belonged with the rest of the legendarium it wouldn't be a problem. But since he doesn't... The best answer I've seen is that he's the personification of the spirit Middle Earth itself. But even that answer is unsatisfactory.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who likes to have all the loose ends tied up.

 

[Nihal]

I can understand that. The problem is that he just doesn't fit anywhere within the scope of Tolkien's mythos. Fans have been trying to figure out just what exactly he is for decades now. If he felt like he belonged with the rest of the legendarium it wouldn't be a problem. But since he doesn't... The best answer I've seen is that he's the personification of the spirit Middle Earth itself. But even that answer is unsatisfactory.

I guess I'm just the kind of person who likes to have all the loose ends tied up.

I think that was exactly what Tolkien intended to do. You can't, you shouldn't understand Bombadil, he's his unsolved mystery.