Jump to content

Lord of the Rings: Books VS. Movies


Merlin

Recommended Posts

I'd like to know the opinions of those of you who spent way too much time on Middle Earth and both read the series and saw the movies. I, personally, am very biased because I first watched the movies at age nine, and have marathoned them every year since, whereas I only read the books for the first time two years ago. I find the movies more enjoyable. The books are more of a walk through Tolkien's world, while we watch people in the world, and the movies are much more character-driven. Anyway, I'm open to discussion and an opinion-change!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very true. The books feel more like a fantasy travelogue than anything whereas the movies are much more focused on the main plot.

I would say the same for A Song of Ice and Fire and the first four seasons of Game of Thrones.

The books and screen adaptations were just different experiences, and I wouldn't choose one as better than the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what has been said here. All in all, I think that the books (in combination with the Hobbit book) are, in a way, the definite, complete experience, in that they are more expanded, have a lot of lore unmentioned in the movies and are more true to the mythological roots of the ideas in the story. That said, the films have more of an emotional impact on me, mostly because the greater depth to side characters (especially Theoden, Faramir, and Denethor, whose madness is blamed on Sauron's influence rather than internal conflict in the books) makes for better drama. It's very different from what the books try to achieve, both are fantastic at what they do, both among the best trilogies in their respective medium.

So, I guess the best summary for my take on this is: the books are the main canon, the films are my favorite, both are highest tier. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like the movies better for a couple of reasons.

  1. While the books have such detailed world building (Which is great) I feel like Tolkien focuses on that too much and that bogs down the book and makes it more like reading a history book.
  2. The movies managed to keep the story moving with out losing the spirt of the books which I find very impressive.

The ONLY reason I do not like the movies is because it is really obvious that the character's don't really know what they are doing with swords. (That's just my opinion thought) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm generally an unabridged kind of guy. Firmly believe something like The Count of Monte Cristo should never be read abridged. I spent longer than I like to admit trying to find the full version of The Princess Bride book before I realized that the, "Just the good parts version" actually is the original and part of the joke. I've read LoTR many times and own the extended editions of all the movies. I like to have the full experience, basically.

That being said, when it comes to LoTR, the books are, quite frankly, dreadfully dull at times. I'm sad we lost Tom Bombadil, but beyond that, I feel like the movies are the superior way to experience the story in many ways.They keep the spirit and the story in tact, and they viciously trim the fat. Sure, we lose some nuance and a couple of worthwhile bits here and there, but for the most part, they really did an incredible job.

On the flipside of that, I think The Hobbit is a wonderful book. It doesn't drag like the trilogy does. It's fun and lively and straight-forward. I really enjoy reading it. The way that stretched it out into 3 movies so that they could shoehorn in a love story, a barrel-riding fight, the wizard/necromancer battle, etc. is a crying shame. I understand why you'd want to. I mean, in the book Bilbo spends almost the entirety of the giant, climactic final battle knocked out. It skips over the whole thing. I can understand, especially after the success of the trilogy, the desire to, you know, actually show the battle, but it kind of defeats the point. The Hobbit is Bilbo's story. He IS the hobbit, and there's not much he can or should be doing in that battle. So you don't need the battle, and you certainly don't need all that other junk. The book, in this case, is the superior version of the story, IMO.

Edited by datalaughing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Hobbit films are just terrible, for the reasons mentioned and many more. Can't really phrase it any other way. I really like the book, too...

36 minutes ago, Shard of Reading said:

While the books have such detailed world building (Which is great) I feel like Tolkien focuses on that too much and that bogs down the book and makes it more like reading a history book.

Yes, but at the same time, it is more or less a history book in-world, so I think that only fits. It makes it a comparatively slow read though, I agree with that. That's nothing in comparison to the Silmarillion though. That one really makes no prisoners. :D

Edited by Elegy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can appreciate the movies, but I look at them more as action films and eye candy. I feel like the books were really trying to say something though. Things about mythology, sin, forgiveness, redemption etc. I feel like the books were much deeper and poignant than anything the movie could touch. Gimli's character in the movies was reduced to more of a comic relief and well...more of a simpleton. I may sound like I don't like the movies, but I actually really enjoy them for what they are. I just prefer the books.  

Edited by Ammanas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The books are an interesting entity as the older I get/ more time I read them, 

  1. I understand more
  2. I am less bored reading them

I'll admit I am not yet to the point I can read them with no boredom, but I think it's worth it to read them every few years. Also the movies ruined Pippin, he was so smart in the books and then they decided they needed a dude with three brain cells.

2 hours ago, Elegy said:

Yeah, the Hobbit films are just terrible, for the reasons mentioned and many more. Can't really phrase it any other way. I really like the book, too...

Yes, but at the same time, it is more or less a history book in-world, so I think that only fits. It makes it a comparatively slow read though, I agree with that. That's nothing in comparison to the Silmarillion though. That one really makes no prisoners. :D

Are you saying that you find The Silmarilion dull? I have to ask what you are on because it is almost certainly illegal, The Silmarilion  is awesome, I was very interested in that, but I read the appendixes of Return of the King, and occasionally would read my history book for fun, so I could just be weird.:D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elegy said:

Yeah, the Hobbit films are just terrible, for the reasons mentioned and many more. Can't really phrase it any other way. I really like the book, too...

Yes, but at the same time, it is more or less a history book in-world, so I think that only fits. It makes it a comparatively slow read though, I agree with that. That's nothing in comparison to the Silmarillion though. That one really makes no prisoners. :D

Yeah, unfortunately, reading the Silmarillion was, for me, like reading the Bible the whole way through, which is a feat I find I don't wish to accomplish.:)

The rest of you have said it all! Though I do have the bad habit of complaining to my brother every time Tolkien goes off on a tangent about trees or someone sings a really long song in Elvish, I do enjoy reading the books, just for a very different reason than the movies. There are very few instances in the books where I truly connect with the characters, (Some of those being when Faramir talks to Eowyn in the House of Healing, or when Pippin and Merry are re-capping the Battle of Isengard.), whereas I love the Mythology and the depth it goes into very every single thing. Everything they encounter in the books is alive and has a history, and I find that really cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Are you saying that you find The Silmarilion dull? I have to ask what you are on because it is almost certainly illegal, The Silmarilion  is awesome, I was very interested in that, but I read the appendixes of Return of the King, and occasionally would read my history book for fun, so I could just be weird.:D 

Just that it's a slow read and way more heavy and uncompromising in its approach than the main books - I like it, although not as much as the Lord of the Rings. The Beren and Luthien story in particular is certainly one of Tolkien's best works, I love that one. It's undoubtedly challenging as a whole, but I don't mean that as an measure of how much I enjoyed it!

---

One thing I feel is worth bringing up is that in general, Tolkien never aimed at a cinematic/overly visual writing style like most modern authors do. That's because he was mostly inspired by actual works of mythology and conceptualized Middle-Earth as a whole as a fictional mythology rather than a fantasy universe - it's why most of his work is closer to Homer, the Bible, Beowulf, and the Kalevala (my personal favorite myth) than to, say, Brandon or Robert Jordan. Since such a piece of mythology could not really faithfully be reconstructed in film (especially since the people who would tell and write down these stories in-world do not have that technology, so the films would not be the "original documents" of their culture), they can't possibly win in the same game the books play. So they play their own game - grand scope blockbuster cinema - and master it in their own right. I think it's always important to make that distinction between the goals of both works, and recognize how confident they are in both. Tolkien has certainly achieved the more extraordinary goal, while the film trilogy is not as revolutionary, but has had more of an emotional impact on me personally - which is why I probably prefer it at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
 
3
2 hours ago, Elegy said:

One thing I feel is worth bringing up is that in general, Tolkien never aimed at a cinematic/overly visual writing style like most modern authors do. That's because he was mostly inspired by actual works of mythology and conceptualized Middle-Earth as a whole as a fictional mythology rather than a fantasy universe - it's why most of his work is closer to Homer, the Bible, Beowulf, and the Kalevala (my personal favorite myth) than to, say, Brandon or Robert Jordan. Since such a piece of mythology could not really faithfully be reconstructed in film (especially since the people who would tell and write down these stories in-world do not have that technology, so the films would not be the "original documents" of their culture), they can't possibly win in the same game the books play. So they play their own game - grand scope blockbuster cinema - and master it in their own right. I think it's always important to make that distinction between the goals of both works, and recognize how confident they are in both. Tolkien has certainly achieved the more extraordinary goal, while the film trilogy is not as revolutionary, but has had more of an emotional impact on me personally - which is why I probably prefer it at the end of the day.

I totally agree. Tolkien really just wanted to display his world, not tell a story. I think nowadays we're more used to fast-paced stories that don't go so deep into mythology, and that's why so many people get freaked out by the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, datalaughing said:

I'm generally an unabridged kind of guy. Firmly believe something like The Count of Monte Cristo should never be read abridged.

Agreed! I honestly did not know what they would have abridged out of that book anyway, it all flowed together just fine in the original form. 

As far as the OP is concerned, Lord of the Rings is garbage, both book and film. You should partake in true art like the book The Eye of Argon or the movie Ewoks: The Battle for Endor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2020 at 4:03 PM, Orlion the Platypus said:

As far as the OP is concerned, Lord of the Rings is garbage, both book and film. You should partake in true art like the book The Eye of Argon or the movie Ewoks: The Battle for Endor.

You are asking for trouble, you just dissed one of the greatest works of Fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The songs don’t make much sense unless your aware of the events that happened in the Silmarillion. If you are aware of the context though I think they really enrich the story. Really though one needs to understand the first age of Middle Earth to understand the events in the third age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ammanas said:

The songs don’t make much sense unless your aware of the events that happened in the Silmarillion. If you are aware of the context though I think they really enrich the story. Really though one needs to understand the first age of Middle Earth to understand the events in the third age. 

I feel my contrarian nature can not let this stand! 

So, a lot of stuff like the songs and ruins and legends are meant to hint at a deeper history and culture. Since Lord of the Rings is not meant to be a historical work, meta or otherwise, the context and meaning are not necessary. 

Lord of the Rings is a literary work meant to depict the passing of an age of magical wonders. The tales hinted at but not elaborated on enforce this sentiment: wonder and magic have passed from the world, and though we may remember hints, the content has been lost to us as we've progressed into the Modern World and lost innocence post-WWI. For that,  I label Lord of the Rings as a modernist fantasy, and it's the modernist elements that make it somewhat palatable in literary circles. 

That Tolkien actually developed most of these tales beforehand meant that he could reference them in an authentic way. As a technique, though, that's kinda a bit much and unnecessary for world building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem

"Gil-Galad was an Elven-king.

Of him the harpers sadly sing.

The last whose realm was fair and free

between the Mountains and the Sea.

His sword was long, his lance was keen,

his shining helm afar was seen;

the countless stars in heaven's field

were mirrored in his silver shield,

But long ago he rode away,

and where he dwelleth none can say;

for into darkness fell his star

in Mordor where the shadows are." -Fellowship of the Ring 209-210

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...