Lord of the Rings

[Justin Kissel]

Which do you prefer, the book(s) or the movies?

[mike]

1st and 4th volumes were too boring.

[Gamliel]

Books.  Movies completely left out Bombadil.

[Andrew21091]

Books.  Movies completely left out Bombadil.

I felt that Bombadil threw off the flow of the story when I read Fellowship.

Personally, watching the movies helped me appreciate the books more and vice versa. I love them both. The movies are amazing as are the books. I can't just choose one over the other.

[Ortho_cat]

i got bogged down in the details of the books...

[PeterTheAleut]

I thought Peter Jackson took some liberties with Faramir that almost destroyed his noble character, and the fight between Gollum and Frodo inside Mount Doom was totally overdone. Other than that, I really liked the movies.

[PrincessMommy]

I love the books....disliked the movies.  No Tom Bombadil, the romance between Arwen and Aragorn was played up way too much, Arwen became a warrior princess  , What happened to Faramir???, Aragorn & Arwen were totally miscast as a prittyboy and a girl who couldn't talk normal, Tommy Flanagan would have made a much better Aragorn....I could go on.  Not that I have strong opinions or anything   

[Shiny]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

The reason being is that you have to condense so much information and parse out the bits that cannot be included in a 3hr+ flick. To still make a movie that is enjoyable and rewarding, while remaining ever so faithful to the source material, Jackson must get the highest praise.

Another issue is the interpretation of LOTR. It's going to be slightly different for anyone reading the books, and I'm sure certain directors would have approached the LOTR films differently.

I'm glad we have the Jackson trilogy. It is the best we are ever going to get. If you want all the details, mythos, whatever just read the books and let your imagination do the work.

Personally I'll take the films over the books anyday. And normally I'm the kinda guy that likes the books better than the movies.

[Gamliel]

I love the books....disliked the movies.  No Tom Bombadil, the romance between Arwen and Aragorn was played up way too much, Arwen became a warrior princess  , What happened to Faramir???, Aragorn & Arwen were totally miscast as a prittyboy and a girl who couldn't talk normal, Tommy Flanagan would have made a much better Aragorn....I could go on.  Not that I have strong opinions or anything   

+++

[Jonathan Gress]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books. The exclusion of Tom Bombadil is ultimately inconsequential, since he is not a crucial character in the books, but the portrayals of Arwen and Faramir, who are much more important, are cases in point.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

I think it's fair, since the movies are supposedly based on the books. For those who love Tolkien's work, it's fair to talk about how faithful the movies are to what he envisioned in his trilogy and/or complain about some of the artistic liberties Jackson took with the story. To us, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the Gold Standard by which Peter Jackson's big screen adaptation is to be judged. It's not like the movies are based on The Phantom Tollbooth or something like that.

[mersch]

I like the books better. probably due to spending most of my summers at my aunts lake/hunting cabin growing up No TV, radio was iffy, but oh my, the books we had the choice of reading there! One of my favs to re-read during the summer! 

[mike]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books.

Such as...

[Justin Kissel]

It's been too long since I read the books to be able to accurately remember things like major character changes, but I'll say that I did find the audio commentaries helpful in understanding why certain things would have worked in print but wouldn't have worked in audio/video.

[Jonathan Gress]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books.

Such as...

I gave the examples of Arwen and Faramir above.

[PeterTheAleut]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books.

Such as...

I think I covered a few.

[primuspilus]

I love the movies, but I wanted to see a barrow-wight and old Tom WITHOUT logging into my Lord of the Rings Online account

PP

[Schultz]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

I think it's fair, since the movies are supposedly based on the books. For those who love Tolkien's work, it's fair to talk about how faithful the movies are to what he envisioned in his trilogy and/or complain about some of the artistic liberties Jackson took with the story. To us, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the Gold Standard by which Peter Jackson's big screen adaptation is to be judged. It's not like the movies are based on The Phantom Tollbooth or something like that.

And yet the Professor himself was quite aware and okay with filmmakers changing details as long as they were consistent.  The only times he complained in his letters about prospective screenplays were when they REALLY took liberties with his story.  The things that Jackson added/removed are entirely consistent with the films as a whole and, I think, the Professor would have been quite fine with them.

LOTR is not Scripture and Tolkien himself was revising things in his cosmology until the time of his death. 

[biro]

I think it's too bad Tolkien didn't live to see the newer movies and video games that have been made out of his books. I wonder what he would have thought of them. 

[orthonorm]

Did I see someone refer to the Phantom Tollbooth above?

Finally something decent to discuss in this thread.

Game changing piece of literature.

[biro]

Did I see someone refer to the Phantom Tollbooth above?

Finally something decent to discuss in this thread.

Game changing piece of literature.

Exactly. It's one of the greats.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

I think it's fair, since the movies are supposedly based on the books. For those who love Tolkien's work, it's fair to talk about how faithful the movies are to what he envisioned in his trilogy and/or complain about some of the artistic liberties Jackson took with the story. To us, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the Gold Standard by which Peter Jackson's big screen adaptation is to be judged. It's not like the movies are based on The Phantom Tollbooth or something like that.

And yet the Professor himself was quite aware and okay with filmmakers changing details as long as they were consistent.  The only times he complained in his letters about prospective screenplays were when they REALLY took liberties with his story.  The things that Jackson added/removed are entirely consistent with the films as a whole and, I think, the Professor would have been quite fine with them.

And that's where we disagree. Peter Jackson's portrayal of Faramir was, at first, totally different from the books.

[Justin Kissel]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

I think it's fair, since the movies are supposedly based on the books. For those who love Tolkien's work, it's fair to talk about how faithful the movies are to what he envisioned in his trilogy and/or complain about some of the artistic liberties Jackson took with the story. To us, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the Gold Standard by which Peter Jackson's big screen adaptation is to be judged. It's not like the movies are based on The Phantom Tollbooth or something like that.

And yet the Professor himself was quite aware and okay with filmmakers changing details as long as they were consistent.  The only times he complained in his letters about prospective screenplays were when they REALLY took liberties with his story.  The things that Jackson added/removed are entirely consistent with the films as a whole and, I think, the Professor would have been quite fine with them.

And that's where we disagree. Peter Jackson's portrayal of Faramir was, at first, totally different from the books.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Tolkien do quite a bit of borrowing and modifying from previous stories/myths when constructing Middle Earth...?

EDIT--just an edit to say that I realise they are two different situations, since the movies are supposed to be based on the books and carry the name... I'm just wondering if maybe a bit of modification is necessary as time moves on and context changes... even leaving aside the sheer number of hours required, would it even be possible (or desirable) to make films that follow the books to the letter? I dunno, I guess I dislike some of the changes, but overall thought the movies were very well done. I remember stories that came out during the prehistoric age of the internet, before the movies came out, and I was frustrated by what I read then as well. Fast forward 15 years later and I love the movies... *shrugs*

[Schultz]

I think it's unfair to make a comparision to the books and the movies.

I think it's fair, since the movies are supposedly based on the books. For those who love Tolkien's work, it's fair to talk about how faithful the movies are to what he envisioned in his trilogy and/or complain about some of the artistic liberties Jackson took with the story. To us, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is the Gold Standard by which Peter Jackson's big screen adaptation is to be judged. It's not like the movies are based on The Phantom Tollbooth or something like that.

And yet the Professor himself was quite aware and okay with filmmakers changing details as long as they were consistent.  The only times he complained in his letters about prospective screenplays were when they REALLY took liberties with his story.  The things that Jackson added/removed are entirely consistent with the films as a whole and, I think, the Professor would have been quite fine with them.

And that's where we disagree. Peter Jackson's portrayal of Faramir was, at first, totally different from the books.

I will definitely agree with you there that Jackson changed Faramir's intial portrayal, but I think he did it the right way, even, dare I say it, in a way that Tolkien would have approved.  I would even go so far to say that Jackson/Boyens/Walsh bettered the story with what they did with Faramir.

For if Faramir would have simply walked away from the ring like he did in the books, especially after the relationship between Denethor and Faramir was portrayed in later flashback scenes (esp. in the Extended Cuts), it would have been simply unbelievable.  What worked in the book simply does not work on the screen.  Faramir was shown to desperately want his father's approval and, in keeping with this characterization, initially wanted to bring the Ring back to Denethor.  The scenes between the discovery of the hobbits and their release at Osgiliath are some of the most gut wrenching pieces in the film.  You can see the conflict within Faramir as he slowly realizes what the Ring is, what it can do, and how it must be destroyed.  The literary Faramir is practically a footnote, but the cinematic one is a hero who overcomes temptation for the greater good, sacrificing his own happiness (by doing what his father would have) and, in effect, further exposing the Ring as the succubus it is, which is entirely consistent with Jackson's vision of the Ring being an active participant in the story as opposed to the rather passive one in the books.

The only thing I took umbrage with was the appearance of the Elves at Helms' Deep.  I understand why Jackson did it, but, at the same time, felt it unnecessary for the action.  Part of the whole point of LOTR is that the time of the Elves has passed and it is time for Man to grow up and, well, "man up" and take care of Sauron once and for all, to redeem their kind for the weakness of Isildur.  

[orthonorm]

Did I see someone refer to the Phantom Tollbooth above?

Finally something decent to discuss in this thread.

Game changing piece of literature.

Exactly. It's one of the greats.

Been looking for a reason to adapt it into a quadrilogy, now I see there is an obvious market.

[KShaft]

Did I see someone refer to the Phantom Tollbooth above?

Finally something decent to discuss in this thread.

Game changing piece of literature.

 Are these the things where demons ask us questions after we die and if we fail we go straight to hell???

[Byron]

Which do you prefer, the book(s) or the movies?

The books by a country mile. Although the movies were fine - there was room for improvement. Eg by including more source material, toning down the ott action (Legolas skateboarding on his shield etc), made Gimli less of a buffoon/comic relief and more of a noble dwarf, and less non-original Jackson add-ons. Case in point being the Worg/Wolf attack in TTT and Aragorn disappearing down the river. The character of Faramir was not handled well either.

Any predictions for the upcoming Hobbit films? More or less faithful to source material compared to LOTR?

Personally i was looking forward to Del Torro directing, pity he didn't stay on. His vision may have been a less light hearted, less action oriented Hobbit compared to what we will get with Jackson.

[Agabus]

I am interested to see if Peter Jackson decided to turn The Hobbit into a brooding work consistent with his adaption of The Lord of the Rings or if he kept it a silly children's story.

[primuspilus]

I am interested to see if Peter Jackson decided to turn The Hobbit into a brooding work consistent with his adaption of The Lord of the Rings or if he kept it a silly children's story.

Judging from the trailers, its gonna be serious. Which, I must admit, after going back to the Hobbit after Lord of the Rings, I take the story a bit more serious....or at least try to....

PP

[Shanghaiski]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books.

Such as...

Weird moments between Frodo and Sam.

[primuspilus]

The problem is not that Peter Jackson didn't include every detail in the book, but that he added details in the films which were not in the spirit of the books.

Such as...

Weird moments between Frodo and Sam.

I think there were a few times where a kiss was gonna happen *blech*

PP

[mike]

For me they looked like a couple more in the book.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Reviews > Topic: Lord of the Rings