News |
PETER JACKSON'S LOTR FILMS ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS! - LOTR FILMS ARE BETTER THAN THE BOOKS!
May 16, 2004
Submitted By Adree
Comment on This
Email to a Friend
Digg This
Another subject we butted heads over, was the death of Haldir. My sister said that Haldir's death was unnecessary in TTT, because he never died in the books. She said it was foolish for Jackson to kill Haldir in the movie. I claimed that the situation could easily go either way. It would have been nice if Haldir had lived, yet, it's not that big of a deal that he didn't. Don't misunderstand me--I love Haldir as much as the next person (I thought Craig Parker made a really cool Haldir!), but his untimely death in TTT gave the Battle at Helm's Deep a lot more drama and emotion. I was very shocked and sad when he died (I liked him), but I also have to admit that it was a great moment for the epic battle scene. It not only intensified the traumatic event to the fullest extent, but it also enabled Haldir to go down in a blaze of glory! He got to die with honor and in sacrifice, what more could a brave warrior ask for? It was indeed an honorable death, even if it didn't happen that way in the original books. Sheri also commented that the elves were never at Helm's Deep to begin with, but I shot back by claiming that Jackson's surprise of sending the elves to Rohan's aid was a brilliant concept. I personally think the Battle at Helm's Deep in the movie is so much better than in the books simply because the elves WERE there. Having the elves fight alongside the humans was a lot more exciting, and it made the whole battle more phenomenal.
However, the biggest argument we got into was over Arwen and Aragorn. She agrees with the Tolkien-purists about Arwen's expanded role in the films. She said, "Well, although Liv Tyler did a good job playing Arwen, I think it was stupid for Jackson to give her a bigger part because she was never supposed to have a major role in the story to begin with! Tolkien never meant for Arwen to be a main character in the story, so I don't understand why Jackson felt he had to give her such a major role in the films. Aragorn and Arwen's romance in the book was never a big deal to begin with. Liv Tyler's expanded role was completely unnecessary and it just made no sense. Jackson should have left out all the love scenes with Arwen and Aragorn, and showed more characterization between all the other main characters." I couldn't help but totally disagree with her 100%! I said, "I know a lot of Tolkien-purists hated Arwen's added scenes in the films, but Jackson did the right thing. Expanding her character's role was a logical and practical move on Jackson's part. Making her a main character was not a waste of time at all, it was actually brilliant! Think about it, in Tolkien's original story Arwen only popped up at the end of ROTK when she married Aragorn. She made a banner for him, gave up her immortality, they had a son--and that was it! She was barely in the story any other time, in fact, you don't really find out that Aragorn is in love with her until the very end. That never would have worked in the films, not in a million years! You can't have the audience witnessing Aragorn's long journey throughout all three movies, and then watch him marry some strange, dark-haired elf girl in the end that no one has ever seen before." Everyone in the audience would have been asking, "Wait a minute, what's going on? Who is she? Why is Aragorn marrying some unknown elf girl?" Trust me, it would have been a total disaster if Jackson had done Arwen in the films like Tolkien did in the books. If we're tagging along with Aragorn throughout the movies, then by golly we had better get to see more of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship on the big screen--especially if they're going to get married in the end and spend the rest of their lives together. That makes a lot more sense. Therefore, Jackson's expanded version of Arwen on the big screen was far better and more appropriate than the "little-known" Arwen in the books. Jackson turned a "nothing" character into one of the most popular female characters ever! Besides, Liv Tyler only got a total screen-time of fifteen minutes in each of the films anyway, so what's the big deal? And you've got to admit, Liv Tyler and Viggo Mortensen have great chemistry together, so their relationship was very believable and it worked out perfectly. Well, no matter how hard I tried to convince Sheri that Arwen's expanded role was a smart move and worked the best for the films, she still refused to accept it. But on a good note, there were several things that we did agree on. One of the things we agreed on was the changes in Faramir's character. We both prefer the movie version of Faramir--rather than the goody-goody version in the books. Faramir in the original books was a nice guy and all, but he really wasn't that interesting. Jackson's version of Faramir is much better than Tolkien's. David Wenham is a superb actor who did a wonderful job playing Faramir, plus, we also loved the more intense drama that was added to his character. We agreed that Faramir's desperation to fill Bormir's shoes and save Gondor from total destruction was more captivating and emotional. You could really feel Faramir's pain and struggling in the films, and his hopeless relationship with his bitter father, Denethor, was heart-wrenching. You had to feel sorry for poor Faramir, no matter how hard he tried he just couldn't get a break! Plus, David Wenham's portrayal of Faramir suited the darker mood of the story. His pain and desperation blended much better with the storyline, rather than the Faramir in the book. It was another genius move on Jackson's part! We also liked Jackson's twist of showing Frodo getting possessed by the evil ring in TTT and ROTK. Showing Frodo's mind slowly being controlled and influenced by Sauron's ring made more sense in the story, as opposed to the book. It works much better to see Frodo being possessed by the dark power of the ring, that way it's more understandable as to why he refuses to toss the ring into the fires of Mt. Doom at the very end. We also support Jackson's decision to make Gollum frame Sam so Frodo would send him away, as opposed to Sam simply getting lost in Shelob's Lair. Sam being sent away gave Sean Astin an excellent opportunity to really show off his amazing acting skills, plus, it added even more drama to Sam's suffering character. And thank God Jackson had Frodo finally do something right for a change by fighting Gollum and throwing him over the edge into Mt. Doom! It was refreshing to see him actually take part in the destruction of the ring. I was glad that Jackson made more of a hero out of Frodo--rather than have Gollum be the one to destroy the ring by accidently stumbling backwards off the cliff (like it happened in the book). Frodo fighting Gollum and throwing him over the edge was a lot more exciting, than the original book's ending.
Although me and Sheri might differ in opinion, we both definitely agree that Jackson's LOTR films are much better than the books in certain ways. Perhaps Tolkien-purists will always complain about the small changes, but the changes work out a lot better for the films. Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens did an outstanding job bringing the epic story to the big screen. Even the characterization in the movies are more intriguing and enjoyable than in the books--at least in my opinion. There was nothing remotely likable about Gollum in the books, yet, Jackson and Andy Serkis managed to turn the unlikable creature into one of the most celebrated and favored characters of all time! Arwen was nothing in the books, yet, Liv Tyler made her one of the most notable female characters around. It's the same situation with Galadriel. Even Frodo (who was really boring in the books) was more likable, Elijah Wood gave the bland character Frodo a more favored boost as well. Christopher Lee's version of Saruman is ten-times better in the films than in the books, too. Jackson turned Saruman's character into a much better villian on the big screen. I sincerely mean no disrespect to Tolkien or the Tolkien-purists, but in some ways Jackson's LOTR movies are better than the original LOTR books--and this is a fact that me and my sister can both agree on. The LOTR films are not a travesty to Tolkien's work, they're a masterpiece. And besides, J.R.R. Tolkien himself even bluntly replied once in an interview, that if his LOTR books were ever to be made into movies, he would grant full permission and support to the individual creative vision of the directors and producers. Tolkien clearly stated that he would accept the director's individual creativity and interpretation on however they wanted to bring his imaginary world of Middle-earth to life on the big screen--and that's exactly what's happened with Jackson. Peter Jackson is not only one of the greatest mastermind directors of our time, but he's also the only director who possesses the true vision to bring Middle-earth to life on film and do Tolkien's story proper justice. The slight changes and alterations in the films are minor, and everything still worked out perfectly fine in the end. Jackson never ruined the story, he only brought it to life in an exceptional way! No doubt, Tolkien would be pleased with Jackson's genius work. I think Tolkien-society should give credit where credit is due, after all, it was the brilliance of Peter Jackson who introduced Tolkien's books to a whole new generation. You would be surprised at how many people had never read "The Hobbit" or "The Lord of the Rings" books before, but now (thanks to Jackson) everyone and their grandma is reading them! Even lesser-known, Tolkien-related books (such as "The Simarillion"
who have never received any recognition or fans have become very popular. The LOTR films have even put fantasy films on the map and have allowed fantasy in general to be widely appreciated and taken more seriously. The films have opened new doors and opportunities in the movie industry and for the fantasy realm of literature. After all, they're starting to make all kinds of exciting fantasy film projects coming in the near future--such as, "The Chronicles of Narnia", "The Last Unicorn", and many others. Do you honestly think that Hollywood would be making all these wonderful fantasy-oriented films if it wasn't for the success of the LOTR movies? Face it, Jackson's films have contributed a lot to society, and they've also done great justice to Tolkien's work as well. Regardless of how you look at it, I suppose in the end everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There's no really right or wrong way to see the picture, it all just depends on which side of the line you're standing. But no matter which side you may be on, we're all fans of Middle-earth in one way or another--and in the end, that's all that really counts. Hooray for Tolkien, and hooray for Peter Jackson! I am thrilled as punch at all the tremendous success the LOTR trilogy has achieved, especially ROTK! Let's face it, it's not everyday that a film wins 11 Oscars! Not only was ROTK the BEST picture of the year (and it rightfully deserved to win all 11 categories), but the Academy voters also realized how important it was to reward Jackson the 11 golden Oscars as acknowledegment for the glorious success and spectacular achievements for all 3 LOTR films. You might say, the Academy rewarded all 3 films at one time--in one big triumphant ceremony. And personally speaking, I'm glad that the films finally got the Oscar recognition they deserve!
Comment on This
Email to a Friend
Digg This
Get more information on this article's topic here:
The Reading Room :
Essays :
Reader Comments
... 49 Comments
I apologize in advance, but not really, for I mean everything I am about to say. The films were excellently done, and I agree that they deserved their Oscars.
First, in an essay, if you truly wish to be taken seriously, and actually have people read the whole thing, you need to break it up into more paragraphs. Its not as bad when on paper, but its really difficult to read those paragraphs on the computer. I tried to read the whole thing, but it is really difficult to focus, so I mostly skimmed.
Now, you had some excellent points in your discussion with your friend, however to claim that the movie is better than the books as though it were a fact is very foolish, not to mention illogical.
You may enjoy the movies more than the books, but this is purely your opinion. You can explain why this is your opinion, but you cannot expect everyone to agree, and you ought not state your opinion as though it were fact.
As to deciding which is better, no one (not you, not I) can really say. They are an entirely different medium, and as such cannot truly be compared. There are many aspects of the books that could not translate well into movie form, but that does not lessen the quality of the books. Nor does the great quality of the books (I prefer books to movies in general) lessen the quality of the movies. To the contrary, without the books there would be no movie for the fans of books or movie to evaluate and enjoy.
Most of your points were very well made. Tom Bombadil would have ruined the flow of the movie, introducing Arwen at the end would have been foolish, it has introduced many to Tolkien's world. . . .
When writing an essay of any kind it is vital to make certain that you can support your claims, and don't make your opinions sound as if they are incontestable fact.
Comment by Elflet - May 17, 2004 @ 2:53 PM
Hmm... this was truely intresting to read... although it was slightly one sided in opinion, I did enjoy reading the essay. Then again, it did give your sister's opinion too... but nonetheless....
I don't really agree with the way you put it, about you thinking that the movies are better than the books, but like Elflet said, that is your opinion. It seemed like you were STATING that the movies were better than the books, and not just expressing an opinion.
Some parts of the book couldn't have been used in the movie, certian parts of the book would have thrown some viewers who have never read the books, off topic... like Tom Bombadil and Goldberry for example. Both great characters, but they would have most certinaly ruined "the flow" of FOTR.
I agree about Haldir's death, and agree with how P.J portrayed him... though he did not have the largest part in the movies.
Also, Aragon and Arwen's relationship was much better portrayed by P.J, in my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree, it was a vital part of the movie. It really explained more to non-Tolkien experenced viewers, about their realtionship.
That's all I've got to say, and sorry if I've offended anyone who disagrees with me, but it's merely my OPINION.
Comment by LeggysGurl4Eva - May 17, 2004 @ 6:59 PM
I do not wish to offend you, but allow me to state that I vehemently disagree. Although the films are enjoyable, in my mind they in no way rival Tolkien's book.
I also fail to see how many of the characters are, as you put it, "boring." Perhaps Faramir is rather ideal, but that is the point, to show that there are noble attributes to human nature. When Frodo fought Gollum at the Cracks of Doom it seemed redundant. Been there, done that - how many times do they need to grapple?
I hope to explain myself further at later, but at this moment I do not have time. I do respect your views, but would like to explain mine.
Comment by Rana-Minethlos - May 18, 2004 @ 9:34 AM
I totally disagree here. I mean, the movies were excellently made and very well put together...but Seriously.
For one thing, Gimli was merely seen as "the Comic relief." they gave Gimli NO respect. He easily kept up with Aragorn and Legolas in the books... EASILY!. Yes he is short, but he is very proud and very tough and non wearing...the movies had him tripping over himself, and stumbling, and falling off his horse...I understand that you need comic relief, but GIMLI???
Also, while they did do a good job with Frodo and Sam's relationship, Since when would Frodo make Sam leave???? That would NEVER happen within the books!!! Sam is Frodo's servant and friend. They love each other and support each other. Even Gollum couldn't destroy that! Yet he did in the movie.
For my final point, I drag in the whole Aragorn/Arwen relationship. Now, I know that their relationship was important, but it's not the point to the books! Most of us wouldn't even know they really had a relationship if it hadn't been for the appendicies in the BACK of the Return of the King! Yes, they get married, and yes Bilbo kinda implies that they have a relationship when he teases Aragorn a little by telling him that Lady Arwen was at the dinner. But that is NOT a highpoint in the books, and it shouldn't have been in the movies!!
The movies were very expertly acted and put together. They were beautiful, and exciting and just awesome! I love these movies, but the books will always win out in my opinion...this is just my humble opinon, so don't attack me! *grin* have a goodnight.
Comment by Little-Hobbit-Child - May 18, 2004 @ 5:08 PM
Im not going to even get into this whole argument, but right off the bat Tolkien created middle-earth. There would be no movies without the book. While the movies are great they do not invoke the power of sub-creation. Sub-creation and mythology are the most powereful parts of LOTR, and Peter Jackson failed to include either of them. Peter Jackson might have been smart, but J.R.R. Tolkien was brilliant.
Comment by EstelTurambart - May 19, 2004 @ 12:50 PM
Well, I like the bookas AND the movies. I am one of those people who are stuck inbetween.
Comment by *~Linsul~*~Songbreeze~* - May 19, 2004 @ 4:29 PM
At least, there were certain things changed that definitely worked in the movie, and in and of themselves they were good. David Wenham was amazing, and I did like his portrayal of Faramir; in some ways, I liked him more than the book Faramir just because he was more conflicted. However, that doesn't mean the movie was better than the books. It was different, certainly, but in translating from one medium to another, some things have to be changed. That doesn't necessarily mean they were better.
And Frodo wasn't trying to throw Gollum into the fire. He was fighting for the Ring, trying to regain it, and they both fell over the edge while they were fighting. Even then Frodo didn't want to give up the Ring--I think he came close to letting go and dying like Gollum had.
Comment by Flying_dolphin - May 20, 2004 @ 11:47 AM
Ok, so like everyone else here, I don't agree on EVERY STINKIN' THING. But, I do agree on some things and I just want to say: good job for stating your own points of view on Middle-Earth, Tolkien, the movies, and the books!! It was very brave of you to post this!
Comment by *Evenstar - May 20, 2004 @ 6:01 PM
NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FREAKIN' WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l
Comment by loverofblueeyesboy - May 22, 2004 @ 11:34 PM
The books are way better then the movies. Even though the movies are well done, a book is almost always better.
Comment by ace1357 - June 12, 2004 @ 3:18 PM
the books were better than the movies buy the pure fact that they came first you can't redue something like a book and have it come out better bye the pure fact that when you redue it it becomes a completly different thing.
Comment by stonethower - June 14, 2004 @ 8:41 AM
Um........ Hell no
Comment by Khand - June 22, 2004 @ 9:05 PM
With all due respect, I detest the movies. No matter how good your intentions, it is impossible to reduce the majesty of Tolkiens work to a mere movie. Every movie based on a book changes the story to some extent. But pj practically rewrote the story,and changed charactor traits of some important people. Gimli was one example mentioned. Another is farimir. In the book Farimir was true and resisted the temptation of the ring that his brother Boromir succumed to. It is a beautiful picture that pj destroys in the movie. The list could go on, and I could write a book on it ( maybe I should ).
Reading opens up the imagination like no movie could ever do.
I do like movies but they never could and never should replace books.
In closing pj should hang from one of Orthancs gibbits for the sport of Sarumans crows.
Angrim
Comment by Angrim - June 29, 2004 @ 4:12 AM
The films weren't even that good. The books were certainly better; the movies are like bad fanfiction.
Comment by I_luv_blitz - July 5, 2004 @ 9:53 AM
I can't believe you can such a lie! Without the books there wouldn't be the films! So, don't say that rubbish!
Comment by GoldenGal_42 - July 14, 2004 @ 10:26 AM
you are in such a wrong place to say that buddy, i enjoy the movies but there is no ousting the masterpiece that are the books!
Comment by pellenor8989 - July 18, 2004 @ 6:46 PM
PJ did an excellent job, yes, I admit, but don't you miss Glorfindel...and Tom Bombadil...and Goldberry...and good Faramir?!?!
I am sorry to say it as rudely as this...but...
PJ SUCKS!!!
Comment by alianastigracelane - July 25, 2004 @ 11:09 AM
okay, it is so wrong to plainly say that the movies are better than the books when you're in the oppinion section!!!!!!!!
now, i haven't read the books, but i KNOW that they are not wrong, or bad. i love the movie and think that maybe you could be right, but you said it in a way that i'm sure is hurtful to all of the book fans, instead of stating your oppinion, so i give you a 1.
Comment by LadyKatherine - July 31, 2004 @ 4:55 PM
Firstly, let me qualify one thing: there is a real difference between the media of literature and screen, thus there will almost always have to be discrepancies in book-to-movie translations. To the Tolkien-purists out there, you have only one argument: the films should never have been made in the first place. The producers and directors have explained why they did certain things differently, and anyone who does not wish to follow the aforementioned argument will have to make do with what has been put before them. After all, there are many people who would have complained if the books had been transferred unaltered onto the silver screen.
As for the statement that the movies are better than the books, I would like to say that I thought that there was in these screen versions much better characterization than in the novels. Tolkien was not a professional novelist - remember, LOTR did not take off when it was first published, only when the Hippy Movement started in the USA, who saw it as a piece of anti-war propaganda (not to mention the effect of reading seriously far-out shit on acid!!!) - and there have been many critics and authors who have made damning comments against the Prof with regards to such. I, like many people, think that the books are a work of genius, but only in regards to the depth and breadth of the world and the story behind it. The literature itself is sadly at times two-dimensional, with bland characters and little real tension between them. The scene in the film where Aragorn renounces the Ring, and allows Frodo to go on his not-so-merry way, is a powerful reminder of the danger even the best of people face in the presence of the Ring. (For a good example of this conundrum, read Dragonlance Chronicles, and that bit when Tanis spends three nights with Kitiara, who is now a sworn enemy.)
Okay, I concede the point that Gimli was not treated seriously enough, and I did feel that the use of magic, despite PJ's statements to the contrary, were too Hollywood-hokey for my liking, but in general I think that the movies were a far more realistic portayal of the story than the books. I mean, can you really conceive of a mighty warrior walking around Middle-earth with naught but a broken sword with which to fight the hordes of darkness?
Better than the books? In some respects I whole-heartedly agree. But the novels have a life of their own that the silver screen cannot convey, and will always be held in reverence and awe.
Comment by Ravens_Tor - August 5, 2004 @ 5:22 PM
The movies were based on the books. The films are spectacular, some of, if not the, greatest of all time, but still cannot surpass the book in scope, detail, plot, or any aspect of storytelling.
Comment by thestewardking - August 9, 2004 @ 8:05 PM
First off, before I start, I'd just like to say, to some people here---yes, the books came first. That is quite obvious. But that is by no means a reason to think that they are automatically better because of it. Just because the movies were based off the books, that makes them worse? How so?
I agree that the characterization was much, much, MUCH better in the movies. I got more of a fell for these characters in the movies, than in the book. ALso, I was fairly young when I read the books, and watching the movies helped me understand the books so much better.
There is a REASON why these films won so many oscars. I think both PJ and Tolkien are geniuses, in their own little ways. Honestly, I'd like to see some of us try and make LOTR into a film, as well as he did. That's another thing---if he were to make it exactly as the book, nobody would really watch except for us, the diehard fans. Some things are just to confusing. The A/A relationship--who would have wanted to see her only once or twice in the movie? It wouldn;t have made much sense. When we are in love, we usually like to see the person more often than that. I think Tolkien's portrayel of them was too rushed, or something. Not good.
They are two different things. They both have their charm, and they're both excellent.
Comment by orlis_hot - August 11, 2004 @ 7:44 PM
There's not much else for me to say that you haven't already said, except I totally agree with every single statement you made!
Comment by lonestarangel07 - August 21, 2004 @ 9:18 PM
The Movies were alright. Personally, I thought that they were degrading LOTR into a simple film, that will dissapear within the next 10-20 years. There was a quote by a famous movie director, "Movies aren't finished, they're abandoned." Now that LOTR is abandoned, that's it, finis. And I never wanted that to happen to any of my favorite books.
As for critique for the movie itself, the characters were all pretty messed up. Frodo was constantly whining during the entire movie, Denethor was portrayed as completely evil. In fact, I think they purposefully made Denethor more evil, to create the Faramir-Denethor conflict, but that's wandering off the topic.
I could go on and on in critique for the films, but I don't want to get carried away, and time is pressing.
And one final note, everything above was all just my opinion.
Comment by Olorin87 - August 28, 2004 @ 2:30 PM
i do agree with some of your points... and i thought they were very well presented... and for that i will give you 5.0. it was an excellent essay. however, i would totally disagree with you on Faramir's character. i think he was so much better in the book!!! in the movie he was portrayed as very shallow... and didn't have as many scenes as i think he deserved. (but i haven't read the book in a long time.) Also, i think that Jackson put entirely to much emphasis on the Battle of Helm's Deep and not enough on the Last Battle. you know what i mean?
also... i am not convinced that Frodo through Gimili off at mt. doom. i think they were fighting over the ring, and in their greed they fell off together... either Frodo had enough sense to either let go... or caught himself in time. (i think arwen's character was to dramatic... it took alot of the focus off aragorn... and i think that was one of tolkien's primary focuses because of the major decisions he was up against.)
but.. good job on presenting your opinion, even though disagree a little.
Comment by eowyn88 - September 1, 2004 @ 1:52 PM
i like the books better than the movies. It may take a long time to read, but tolkien is very detailed in his work. i love the way he explains everything so vividly! It gives you a very realistick picture of what is happening!
elfgirl765
Comment by elfgirl765 - October 10, 2004 @ 4:16 PM
I've seen films where the books were better (Caddie Woodlawn),
I've seen things where the films were better (Poirot television series), and I've seen things where the two were equal. The films and the books are equal.
Comment by ladylongcleeve - November 2, 2004 @ 7:58 PM
You missed a point when disagreeing with your sister. By reducing the Hobbits' ages to about 18, PJ has made them more identifiable with teens. Or at least it was that way with me. You know 'cause those 4 Hobbits' have to deal with those things that we teens deal with (coming of age, ect.)
Comment by ladylongcleeve - November 2, 2004 @ 8:02 PM
You did a good job at the essay. Probably more paragraphs were needed, but you got your point through. I agree with your point that Peter Jackson did what he could do to make the movie enjoyable. The Book of Lord of the Rings, is not boring when it is read. But if placed on the big screen exactly as it is, the viewers may not have been able to sit through. PJ made differences in the movie to make it more entertaining.
He did the best he could to be faithful, but you were right n saying it would have been awkward with Arwen, and that Haldir dying wasn't such a bad thing. And adding tom Bombadil and Goldberry would have made the movie too long.
I however Disagree in saying that the movies are better then the books. Not because PJ changed them but because I just feel that the books Had more in them then the movie ever had.
I believe that from reading that Peter Jackson is just like us. He decided to do a Lord of the rings movie. I Bet that almost every person that wrote a comment here has a story out. Like Peter Jackson they have changed Tolkiens original into something different, that the audience would like and that is possible. Infact some of us have probably changed it more than PJ (including a Love story that never Happens). The only difference is that PJ turned it into a Movie and we submitted ours for viewers to read.
Wlore
Comment by White-Lady-of-Rohan=Eowyn - January 3, 2005 @ 10:05 PM
Well, I think everyone has made some good points. However, I don't think that people have to bash others for their opinions. An opinion page is meant to allow people to express their opinions.
That said, I agree with those of you who said that you cannot say that a book is better than a movie or the other way around, for the simple fact that they are seperate mediums.
Changes were made when making the movies, some that we agree with, others that we don't. That is fact. If you disagree with either the books or the movies, I ask you to consider the fact that it takes some measure of genius to produce something of this magnitude, book or movie. Many people have read the books, many people have seen the movies. I believe that both will last a very long time and hopefully, people will choose to both read and see The Lord of the Rings. Let them make their own decisions as to which they prefer. And let them enjoy the one that they pick, or both if they so desire.
Comment by worshipgod22 - March 13, 2005 @ 3:37 PM
I have read Tolkein's works and became engrossed in the magic of his storytelling. Jackson failed in his attempt to recreate the story, although winning several awards from his peers. But he altered the story too much and over-emphasized the romantic relationships. I think JRRT would be rolling in his grave. I just finished viewing, or more correctly, suffered through, the $100 special edition boxed set of LotR and was greatly disappointed. Special effects and cinematography were the real stars of this film, with special recognition to Ian McKellen's and Christopher Lee's fine work. I had to watch the entire series with subtitles because the loud, incessant cathedral music drowned out the continuously whispered and mumbled dialogue throughout, no matter what sound setup I used. Further, Wood was allowed to go completely overboard with his character, especially in the Return of the King. Painfully tedious at times. And when Frodo suddenly sprang up, after being near death (wayy over-acted) just seconds before, and sprinted up the hill toward the fire while Sam struggled with Gollum, I completely gave up. Tolkein's work cannot be compared to Jackson's attempt. But the task is probably just too awesome for anyone.
Comment by graybeered - May 9, 2005 @ 9:55 AM
I agree with most of the comments in one way or another. And I agreee with most of the points you make in your essay, but as an opinion it should have been stated in a different way.
I think Frodo is a tragic character, both in the books and in the movies, but, in PJ's version is sometimes a little over the top, but well portrayed anyway.
I understand why PJ and the other screenwriters developed Faramir's character the way they did, and it gave more depth to the relationship with his father, but still, I prefer the noble Faramir of the books.
Long before PJ's movies were released, when there was such a buzz about how the books were going to be adapted, I thought it would be a good idea to have Arwen tell the story. Everything can be told from her point of view. She remains after Aragorn's death and that makes her an excellent narrator. Their relationship had to be a part of the film, it gives you an idea of depth that is hard to portray in any other way. Besides, the appendices ARE part of LotR and the story or Aragorn and Arwen is there for all to read. PJ found a good way of telling that story, without stalling the movies.
In my opinion, the female characters are crucial to the development of the the storyline: Arwen is what ultimately drives Aragorn into fullfilling his destiny, Galadriel is the guide and force behind so many things that happen throughout the books, and not to mention Eowyn, whose valour, and resolution pretty much decide the outcome of the battle of the Pelennor fields.
I don't think think Gollum is an unlikeable character in the books, I always feel pity for him when the good part of him arises, and feel sorry for him when he feels betrayed by Frodo in Henneth Annun, but PJ gives him a face, and a voice that remains in your heart, and that is a compliment to his work.
About Haldir's death and the elves at Helm's Deep, it is a good cinematic resource and not too far from the truth: after all the elves had to defend Lórien from the orc raids and who knows, Haldir might have died there, he watched the borders, remember?
The two things I really missed from the movies were the Eowyn/Faramir story, briefly glimpsed in the extended cut DVD, and the scouring of the Shire, a sad loss to the movies, but in a film with several endings as RotK is, it would have been out of place.
LotR has been my favorite book since the first time I read it, and PJ movies are my favorite movies since first I saw them. Both excellent in their on ways, but, thank God, both different.
Comment by Gilwen - May 28, 2005 @ 4:39 PM
I am sorry. I realize that you have been thoroughly bashed for displaying such a statement in a public area, but (as always) I feel I need to give my two cents. Indeed, PJ did an excellent job taking the phenomenal storyline Tolkien created and making it acceptable to the non-ringer viewer. It was a tough project, and I believe he handled it extremely well. But please, any real ringer understands the gaps left by Jackson in the movies. And why wouldn't he? Even with so many scenes and characters left out, each movie was at least 2 1/2 hours long! The movies are simply a modified, shortened image of the books- therefore how could the movies be better? J.R.R. Tolkien was one of the greatest novelists of all time, and you say that Peter Jackson is better? Respectfully, all I can say to you is, HAHAHHA.
Comment by MRC - July 6, 2005 @ 7:21 PM
Adree this is a pretty ugly example of those among us who can't appreciate the book the charachter Faramir was not shallow or ill-defined he was just more virtueous than Boromir in some ways and modern culture no longer believes a man can be noble in today's society there's ALWAYS a scandal
can't there just be good guys who are good?
arwen was not a nobody... if you were to read the appendices you'd see that the romance between them is quite well defined but no one understands this either as the flaw of modern society has forgotten chivalry Aragorn did all that he did for Arwen and she did everything for him
Tom bombadil was a far more necessary charachter than he is given credit for, the hobbit's journey through the old forest was a major turning point for them as they learned that the ring was not all-powerful and here they gained the westernesse daggers without which Frodo would probably have died at Weathertop and the witchking would have killed Eowyn on the fields of pellenor.
this and the whole preparation scheme the hobbits made to make thier escape look natural threw off the pursuit of the wraiths temporarily
however...there is one more thing i must say
the movies made gimli, prince of Erebor look like a bumbling idiot exept to those like my father, who liked Gimli even though PJ made him look worthless
AND THEY TOTALLY OVERRATED FRICKIN LEGOLAS!
Legolas was no heartthrob in the books he was a somber elf warrior who understood the ways of his fellows and was a serious asset but not a romantic or a sex symbol.
Comment by armengost2 - August 5, 2005 @ 11:17 PM
Sure as far as movies go Peter Jacksons efforts were well and good. But I cannot belive that any LOTR fan would call them better than the books.
Not only were things parts taken out, essential plot points were CHANGED!!!! Peter's poor excuse of time constraints does not stand up when you consider all the long wide angle panning shots of scenery and crowds. Also, if you want to make the LOTR movies they should be made in 6 parts. This would allow you to include much more content from the actual books the JRR wrote, and you could dominate the film market for a very long time.
Anyway my tangent is over. I think you are dumb. Not to be mean or nothing, but damn. I actually became a member only because I had to comment on how dumb I think your essay is.
Comment by RAYRAY420 - August 8, 2005 @ 4:18 AM
I have to vehemently disagree with every point you made. However I will only comment on one, because I feel strongly about it. You said
"And thank God Jackson had Frodo finally do something right for a change by fighting Gollum and throwing him over the edge into Mt. Doom!"
PJ had no choice. Movie Frodo was a sniveling little wimp that we all had to put up with for 12 hours. Jackson had to do something to make him a hero.
Throughout the book Frodo displays his courage in many different scenes.
1st in the barrow when he attempts to defend his friends. He has no chance but doesn't desert them. Eliminated from the movie.
2nd On Weathertop when he attacks the lord of the nazgul. He only manages to slice his robe, but he shows more courage than in the movie when he cowers behind his friends.
3rd At the ford. when he defies the nazgul lord with his failing strength. in the movie this courage is given to Arwen.
4th More courage when fighting the wolves the night before entering Moria. Eliminated from the movie.
5th In Moria fighting the orcs. In the movie he cowers and hides.
In the book Frodo demonstrates his worthiness to carry the ring but we never really see that in the movie.
I enjoyed the movies for what they were. Excellent cinematography and special effects. I just have to fast forward through all the offending scenes
PS Gimly was wronged.
Comment by mstrofbuckland - August 16, 2005 @ 11:10 PM
Sorry I could not finish your short story. I have read Tolkien for twenty years. Using my imagination and building me volcabulary . Read the Silmarillion, then you will appreciate the movies. The movies just gave a face to each one. I liked my imaginary ones better. If you get my meanin.
Comment by Gilestel - November 25, 2005 @ 6:19 PM
The way you state your opinions as a fact bothers me. Merely because you believe the movies are better does not mean that they are.
I understand why Peter Jackson had to cut out some segments. People like a movie they can understand, and most people wouldn't understand Tom & Goldberry. They would think that it was too boring.
But I completely disagree with you on Faramir. I did see the part of TTT where he had Frodo, and I think it was horrible! The way that he acted was a travesty. That they should not have changed.
Concluding, I must say this: The books will always be better than the movies because they were the whole basis for the movies. I think that if you truly want to experience Middle Earth, reading the books is the best way to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Tolkien purist, but I don't think that the movies are better. The movies are an awesome work of art. There are very few of its kind in Hollywood. Peter Jackson did an outstanding job for a movie version, but I don't think anyone could have done justice to the books.
Comment by galadriel1122 - December 12, 2005 @ 3:20 PM
The way you state your opinions as a fact bothers me. Merely because you believe the movies are better does not mean that they are.
I understand why Peter Jackson had to cut out some segments. People like a movie they can understand, and most people wouldn't understand Tom & Goldberry. They would think that it was too boring.
But I completely disagree with you on Faramir. I did see the part of TTT where he had Frodo, and I think it was horrible! The way that he acted was a travesty. That they should not have changed.
Concluding, I must say this: The books will always be better than the movies because they were the whole basis for the movies. I think that if you truly want to experience Middle Earth, reading the books is the best way to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Tolkien purist, but I don't think that the movies are better. The movies are an awesome work of art. There are very few of its kind in Hollywood. Peter Jackson did an outstanding job for a movie version, but I don't think anyone could have done justice to the books.
Comment by galadriel1122 - December 12, 2005 @ 3:21 PM
I do agree that the Lord of the Rings movies were some of the best films made in history. There's no doubt about that. But I think that the books were better because they were the actual words J.R.R. Tolkien put down on paper himself. They were his ideas, his extraordinary imagination is the reason that the movies and merchandise are here today and I don't think there is any comparison that can match that or even come close. That's what I think. I do respect you for your insight, though. I love the movies a lot too, kudos to P.J.
Comment by SpencerBaggins - December 14, 2005 @ 8:26 PM
Wait a minute...hello? is something in your head? or...do you have brain???
don't make comments, please...
the books are too much better than the films.
I find that the films are really good, but the books are the most perfect..
Tolkien is really really a genius...
THE BOOKS ARE BETTER THAN THE FILMS!!!
That was my thema in a internetional test for people who speak german, and I was the best of my college...so I have experience in that thema...
Comment by Sheele - December 30, 2005 @ 5:28 AM
Wait a minute...hello? is something in your head? or...do you have brain???
don't make comments, please...
the books are too much better than the films.
I find that the films are really good, but the books are the most perfect..
Tolkien is really really a genius...
THE BOOKS ARE BETTER THAN THE FILMS!!!
That was my thema in a internetional test for people who speak german, and I was the best of my college...so I have experience in that thema...
Comment by Sheele - December 30, 2005 @ 5:29 AM
when Frodo pushes Gollum into the fire, that's...well...not actually what he's doing. Peter Jackson explained this in the extended version of ROTK. He's actually trying to get the ring back but he loses his balance and falls off. Sorry.
Comment by Arwen_@one_ring - March 2, 2006 @ 6:01 PM
I also think that even though you were right on many points, I beg to differ on one thing. When Frodo is being "possesed" by the ring, he looks like he's high. Elijah Wood is a pretty good actor, but that's not one of his strong moments.
Comment by Arwen_@one_ring - March 10, 2006 @ 11:09 PM
To start off I have to stress that I am forever indebted to PJ for opening my eyes to LOTR. That aside I have to disagree with your opinion. To start off you did not realize that even if they wanted to there is no way the elves of rivendell would have been able to come to Rohan's aid. As a matter of fact Elrond did not even know if the Rohirrim were co-operating with Sauron. Second of all the book was NOT meant to be a love story but rather a fight of good against evil. PJ put's too much emphasis on Sauroman in the first movie and does not even put him in the last!! Also Gimli's character was portrayed terribly; he was not some silly, clumsy dwarf but a strong important dwarf who indeed had blue blood in him. I do not say that PJ did a bad job but it is simply folly to say the movies were better than the books.
Comment by superwizard - April 14, 2006 @ 10:15 AM
A FEANORIAN CURSE UPON YOU!! YOU ARE AS BAD AS THE KINSLAYERS THEMSELVES, THE DISPOSSESSED HOUSE OF CURUFINWE.
Jackson took advantage of the fact that Good ol Tolkien is gone.
NOTICE there are not Tolkien poems in the movie except for the Coronation recital.
NOT EVEN SO MUCH AS AN ELBERETH SONG.
PLEASE, GROW A BRAIN.
Comment by Razielsblade_c87 - April 16, 2006 @ 9:15 AM
this must be kept short so I do not lose my temper all together and call the author of this article nasty names.Peter Jackson broke the theme of the books,an as Gandalf so rightly said "He that breaks a thing to find it's meaning has left the path of wisdom." It has also been scietificly proven that reading developes brain cells and TV hinders it them. Therefor,the books also have it over the movies for health reasons.sort if.
Comment by karanahobbit/elf - May 11, 2006 @ 3:26 PM
*sigh* That's a shame. It's stuff like this that makes me wish the films were never made. A shining example of the degradation of our society. I don't know who I feel more sorry for - people like the author of this post, or people who will never read TLOTR because they saw the movies.
And don't get me wrong, I like the movies in their way. It's just a shame. *shakes head*
Comment by FraKcture - January 25, 2007 @ 6:45 AM
Adree, you are entitled to your opinion, but remember that we all have our own opinions.
If you are trying to have your 'opinion' become the final word on the matter, you will FAIL.
Do you also believe that Jackson could have made the LOTR movies without the books?
Seldom if ever does a film adaptation prove to be better than Book: Unless of course, the book
was poorly written.
Jackson's omissions, and complete reworking of some of the major chapters in the trilogy I viewed
with a mixture of amazement, exasperation and disbelief, as perhaps did many others who know the LOTR
as it was written.
The Council Of Elrond in full should have been included.
Surely the Elves would have chosen to go to Minas Tirith rather than Helm's Deep.
Comment by Anlashaq - September 15, 2008 @ 8:00 AM
Maybe you should actually read the books, not just look at the words. You are a !@#$ing retard if you think the books were inferior to the movies. There are so many things wrong with what you have said. Faramir kicked ass in the books and accomplished so much more than his movie counterpart, yet still got mistreated by his father. The relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is referenced in all 3 books, but you actually got to read them and pay attention. Frodo never would have told Sam to leave, period. The battle of Pelennor Fields was amazing and climactic in the books, it was lame and ridiculous in the film. It was not big strong Rohan saves poor little Gondor, and the Ghosts did not do anything but help take the ships. No Rangers were in the movies, which made them suck a little. Aragorn only got Anduril(Narsil reforged, thats the cool sword) in the last movie, he should have had it the whole time. Basically, no, the movies were good(the third was ok) but the books are far better. My suggestion, re read them and actually read them. This was a fraction of what I can use to prove the books are better.
Comment by Joe - December 27, 2008 @ 10:50 PM