|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Jul 7 2008, 10:13pm
Post #26 of 152
(5536 views)
Shortcut
|
but you haven't read the book, isn't that right?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not a reader and find the movies way more enjoyable How can you say which you prefer if you have chosen not to read the book? I don't have problems with people enjoying the "movies more than the books" (I don't agree, but that's a difference of preference or taste) but if you haven't read the book, you are just saying you enjoy the movies. Period. I liked the movies, with one or two serious reservations (don't get me started on Faramir taking the Ring to Gondor...) but without the book the movies would just seem like a really long adventure story. It's only because they lovingly reproduce much of Tolkien's world that I really liked them to begin with. I wouldn't have watched such VERY long movies to begin with without having loved the books enough to see what Jackson was going to do with envisioning ME. a.s.
"an seileachan" Pooh began to feel a little more comfortable, because when you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
|
|
|
Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor
Jul 7 2008, 10:32pm
Post #27 of 152
(5525 views)
Shortcut
|
but I read the book(s) in my youth, and was forever looking at people and casting them in certain roles, doing my own illustrations, photographing LotR-ish places and things, and putting a soundtrack together in my head. I never really had any problem visualizing, though some character faces remained elusive. I also listened to my soundtrack music while drawing, and later while sculpting. Both sides of my family are creative, so I think I was blessed to be able to construct my own vision of Middle-earth early on...and no movie can ever compare to that. Of the movies, FotR comes closest to the book and to my own ideas. I have major issues with some of the changes made by PJ & Co., but still enjoy the movies enough to watch them every year.
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Half-elven
Jul 7 2008, 10:47pm
Post #28 of 152
(5548 views)
Shortcut
|
How long do you think a movie (the 3 movies) would have to be to tell the entire tail of the book in full detail? It's impossible to film a perfect version of the book. Impossible. Not just because the book is so detailed or so well loved but because it's physically impossible to take words and film them exactly as the author intended. Even screenwriters who direct their own movies will never get it 100% correct. But a lot of the secondary plot points were left out of LOTR. The prince of Dol Amroth, Ghan Buri Ghan, the Scouring of the Shire, Tom Bombadil, Faramir and Eowyn's love story (I know it was in the EE, but only a tiny glimpse) just to name a few. And some things were changed to make the movies "easier" to film. Many of those were for the worse in my opinion. It would be incredibly easy to double the length of each movie. Tripling the length might get you close. Quadrupling the length of each would still be possible, I think. But then they wouldn't be very good movies. PJ and co. did a fantastic job with the impossible task they chose. Personally, I think it could have been better. It certainly could have been much much worse. I'm still waiting for some things to appear in an uber-extended edition some day, but I know that some parts I'll always have to read. Unless GDT wants to fill in some of the gaps for us (a GDT Tom Bombadil, anyone?)
My LiveJournal My Costuming Site TORn's Costume Discussions Archive July Screencap of the Day Schedule
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 7 2008, 10:59pm
Post #29 of 152
(5512 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, very different experiences.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As others have said, the books provide a far deeper, richer version of the story, with all the details that the movies couldn't possibly have included (unless they had a 40-hr running time!). Also, books are nicely portable (I loved reading LotR on a sailing trip a few years ago), and it's easy to start and stop whenever you wish. Reading the books has increased my enjoyment of the movies, too.
Sunset, July 3, 2008 Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Anorien
Rohan
Jul 8 2008, 12:12am
Post #30 of 152
(5511 views)
Shortcut
|
I like the movies a little more, just because I was expsoed to them before I read the books. I'm the same! I enjoy it more because of the music, it adds alot more for me. And I love movies, the whole angle, costume, actor thing. It showed a lot of details that I would never have imagined if I had read the books first. But don't get me wrong, I love the books to. I found out a lot more information and other details that weren't in the movies. The way the books are written bring to realization the depth of the characters and the story. But I am a movie person, they're more "dramatic" for me. I like it because I get to see everything and hear everthing. Seeing 10,000 orcs is to me more frightening than reading the number. But I love both, they're just present different aspects of the story.
|
|
|
silneldor
Half-elven
Jul 8 2008, 2:09am
Post #31 of 152
(5517 views)
Shortcut
|
I refuse to choose which is better.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is perhaps like choosing which TORNsib is better. Each expression of joy or love here brings something special to the totality, to the grand sweeping vision of the Tolkien experience, the absolutely beautiful essence which in one can be lost, with continual discovery. "And that's all i gots to say about that''.
"Tolkien, like Lewis, believed that, through story, the real world would become a more magical place, full of meaning. We see its patterns and colors in a fresh way. The recovery of a true view of the world applies both to individual things, like hills and stones, and to the cosmic - the depths of space and time itself. For in sub-creation, in Tolkien's view, there is a "survey" of space and time. Reality is captured on a miniature scale. Through stories like The Lord of the Rings, a renewed view of things is given, illuminating the homely, the spiritial, the physical, and the moral dimensions of the world." Tolkien and C.S. Lewis- The Gift of Friendship -Duriez May the grace of Manwë let us soar with eagle's wings! In the air, among the clouds in the sky Here is where the birds of Manwe fly Looking at the land, and the water that flows The true beauty of earth shows With the stars of Varda lighting my way In all the realms this is where I stay In the realm of Manwë Súlimo By El~Cugu From the website: 'The Realm of Manwe'
|
|
|
geadin
The Shire
Jul 8 2008, 2:38am
Post #32 of 152
(5521 views)
Shortcut
|
You just can't beat the books. They have so much more detail in them. Not to mention that you get a better grasp on the story.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 8 2008, 3:20am
Post #33 of 152
(5508 views)
Shortcut
|
...there is an unabridged set of CDs read by Rob Inglis, which is excellent. 52 hours, on 46 CDs, which gives you some idea of how much has been left out of the movies, which run a mere 12 hours! I understand there's also an American CD set which is said to be terrible, although I haven't heard it.
Sunset, July 3, 2008 Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jul 8 2008, 3:25am
Post #34 of 152
(5518 views)
Shortcut
|
Books first, but I do love the movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's just that the movies have so many flaws when compared with the books. Faramir is a pale imitation of himself in the movie, Eomer is largely absent and never becomes friends with Aragorn, the friendship of Gimli and Legolas is undeveloped, Gollum is a parody of himself, Frodo's nobility is diminished, the love story between Eowyn and Faramir doesn't exist, and Sam is significantly weakened. Why settle for second-best when the books are there, and they are so much better?
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver. `Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder. `I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves. NARF since 1974. Balin Bows
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:33am
Post #35 of 152
(5523 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm asking those who have read the book and seen the movie to compare. Though I did have many long detailed discussions with friends of mine that are LOTR die hards, who went into the most intricate details on the differences in story line, themes, characters, etc. between the 2, and I still like the movie ideas better than what they tried to convince me as being better in their books. Books don't have any sound, except for the dull sound in your mind. You can't feel the rumble of a sub-woffer from a book, it doesn't have 3D surround sound, it doesn't have that awesome Howard Shore or John Williams musical score. It doesn't have the newer highly advanced cinematography, etc. So even if I read the book, I highly doubt I would like or enjoy it half as much as the movie. I'm most happy with the story I experienced in the movie & wouldn't want a thing to change. I think it's better than Tolkien's original story from the book as my friends so vividly described & read important parts to me to prove their point. Jackson is a genius who took a great story and made it better. Like in the 2nd movie at Helm's Deep, where the elves came to fight along side men to honor an alliance they once had...'way better than the book'. Also, the whole driving of orcs into the trees, which led to their demise, didn't appeal to me as much as how Jackson's version is in the movie...sorry, just IMHO. To me 1/2 the experience & enjoyment is the story, 1/4 is the music, and 1/4 the special effects/cinematography. The book would only have 1/2 the enjoyment & I don't like the themes and story-lines as much as the movie, as explained to me in great detail on many occasions.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:36am
Post #36 of 152
(5500 views)
Shortcut
|
for me...I find if I start reading a book, which is not often, I don't get as into it, nearly as much as a movie captivates me. When I watch the movies, I am completely in a different world or visual color, action, sound, music, etc.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:43am
Post #37 of 152
(5512 views)
Shortcut
|
just not these ones. any books I've read, I did not enjoy. So I'm not just saying I enjoy the movies period...I would not enjoy the books period, that is a fact that I know about myself. Plus I am quite up on the books and all the intricate differences in themes, story line, etc. than from the movie, as my friends are huge readers & prefer the books over the movies, and we've discussed the differences at great length on many occasions for hours upon hours. Even getting me to read what they said were most important pages, and also reading various important parts, and then discussing them & the differences from the movie theme or story line. I still think the movie is way better. But none the less, there is just no way I could enjoy any book better than a movie.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:45am
Post #38 of 152
(5502 views)
Shortcut
|
just curious, is your sound track as good as Howard Shores?
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:52am
Post #39 of 152
(5511 views)
Shortcut
|
There is something about all the different art forms that come together in a movie, from the Screen play writers art, to the conceptual art, to the music composition, to the actors artistic abilities, etc. that evoke an emotion in me more than any book could. It's kinda like, if you are at an event and it gets emotional (ie wedding, funeral), people tend to become more emotional when they see others being emotional...people usually do alright until they see that one person that brings them to tears, where they normally may not have. I was doing alright at my grandmothers funeral until I saw a tear in my grandfather's eye for the first time. It's kinda like how a yawn can be contagious. A book to me doesn't have that connection with other people you can see, hear, touch, but rather just with the connection you have with yourself in your own mind, where as a movie has that deeper connection for me, that can stir emotions, chills down my spine.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 3:54am
Post #40 of 152
(5505 views)
Shortcut
|
too much detail irritating and lose my attention. That's just me though.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 4:17am
Post #41 of 152
(5541 views)
Shortcut
|
though I respect your personal opinion for yourself, when I read your post this is what comes to mind immediately (knowing much detail of how those things are in the book from others who have read them of which we've discussed at great lengths): Faramir was done perfectly in the movie. I wouldn't want any more or less. I preferred Aragorn & Arwen's love story so much more. I totally loved how Jackson subtly brought Gimli & Legolas together as friends, and totally got the special bond...brilliant acting & directing & script writing is all I can say. Again, I totally got the full effect of their friendship, and wouldn't want any more or less, just perfect. Gollum/Smeagal was so well done, Jackson is a genius. Perfect as far as I'm concerned. Again I so much preferred the Aragorn/Arwen love story, that I'm glad the love story between Eowyn and Faramir wasn't developed any more as it may have taken away from the better love story, and I totally got enough out of the acting/scene with Eowyn and Faramir together near the end of the 3rd movie...was just right for me...compared to how my friends explained it from their books. Frodo's struggle, yet nobility that still shined through in his acting was amazing...I get chills thinking about it from the movies, and more so when watching them...again no more, no less, just perfection by Jackson once again. And Sam, it wasn't just the words, but how Sean Astin said it/acted, that I could never have envisioned half as well, which made Sam more strong than any of the characters throughout all 3 movies...here are the 2 lines that got me & how Astin delivered was beyond amazing & strength: "Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam? Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for." "...I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you..." The way Jackson started Sam out early on with the first movie, and built him up throughout all the movies, he was the true hero in the end in my mind, and didn't even see that it was him. His humility was just awesome as done in the movie. It was Sam that held on to hope & held up his friend, while Frodo became a shell of himself.
|
|
|
Voorhas
Lorien
Jul 8 2008, 4:18am
Post #42 of 152
(5487 views)
Shortcut
|
"They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night." -- E.A. Poe
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Jul 8 2008, 5:39am
Post #43 of 152
(5505 views)
Shortcut
|
you don't like to read. Too bad, your loss.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Jul 8 2008, 6:07am
Post #44 of 152
(5503 views)
Shortcut
|
Actually, that's really, really sad.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That the "connection you have with yourself in your own mind" is LESS deep that what you get from a movie. If I could not be moved by my own thoughts, but required external sights and sounds to move me, I don't think life would be worth living. Seriously.
|
|
|
Kelvarhin
Half-elven
Jul 8 2008, 6:15am
Post #45 of 152
(5490 views)
Shortcut
|
I love them both, but I do find the books far more fulfilling.
Valinor, O Valinor Andavë yányë hyarya Tumna yá nyèna minya fëa An Valinor, lissë Eldamar Kelvarhin's Universe In the land of TORnadoes...where the brilliant play (with thanks to grammaboodawg :) ) Is TORn...Is Good
|
|
|
leo
Rohan
Jul 8 2008, 8:46am
Post #46 of 152
(5488 views)
Shortcut
|
... that the movies are a "quicker fix" of enjoyment ;-)
|
|
|
Huan71
Lorien
Jul 8 2008, 9:49am
Post #47 of 152
(5500 views)
Shortcut
|
That the "connection you have with yourself in your own mind" is LESS deep that what you get from a movie. If I could not be moved by my own thoughts, but required external sights and sounds to move me, I don't think life would be worth living. Seriously. I'm guessing that sphdle1 is younger than most here and is reflecting how much of the under-30's are. (i'm 36..just..lol) Over the last, what, 20 years or so, reading has gotten less and less popular...bar Harry Potter. I've said it elsewhere here, i cant think of ANY under 25's that i know that read. Certainly not on a regular basis. As for book's or film's. I find them both very different experiences. I allow myself to get completely involved in both. I find it to be more of a mindset thing than anything else.(i've not the time to elaborate on this comment at the moment but there's quite a lot to it.) I suppose, if you put a gun to my little chocolate labradors head and demanded a clear answer i'd say..... book.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 12:09pm
Post #48 of 152
(5498 views)
Shortcut
|
I just never got into it...OK I pretty much outright hate it like getting teeth pulled. I read more than my share of things, but books for the sake of enjoyment, I get no joy from, but rather torture. I really enjoy movies though.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 12:20pm
Post #49 of 152
(5497 views)
Shortcut
|
only when reading for enjoyment
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't know if you fully got what I meant on the connect humans tend to have in general with others that can make an experience more emotionally charged than if just by yourself, but I am referring in the context as it relates to reading. I'm not saying you can't have a deep connection with yourself in your own mind, but many times we tend to have stronger connections in real life situations when around other real people, than we would reading a book or even a movie. But my point is that we tend to have stronger/deeper connections when in company of others (if one person gets the giggles, everyone gets them...laughter is contageous), and for me watching a movie (especially with others around) is 'closer' to that type of social real life connection, than sitting alone in your room reading a book. Don't get me wrong I am moved by my own thoughts plenty, and I'm OK with myself whatever needing someone to complete me, but the external sights and sounds move me more, and make life all that much more fullfilling to me, than if I had no sight and no hearing. I find it sad when someone can only enjoy books, and don't get the art form of film/acting/etc., and be able to just let the movie take you on a journey.
(This post was edited by sphdle1 on Jul 8 2008, 12:28pm)
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jul 8 2008, 12:24pm
Post #50 of 152
(5521 views)
Shortcut
|
Just turned 40, so i guess I should be more of a reader, but actually I find more kids today in the last 8-10 years are getting back to reading because of Harry Potter and other books. My kids are a living example of that. We encourage them to read, and I read to them since they were in the womb. I think reading is very much alive today.
(This post was edited by sphdle1 on Jul 8 2008, 12:25pm)
|
|
|
|
|