The movie is better than the book?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Just a guess here, but you never actually read Lord of the Rings, did you?

I am with SU here. I think the LOR movies were better than the books. For example, that Tom Bombadil episode in the first book was beyond silly. And all those poems in the "elfin" language were painfully boring.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am with SU here. I think the LOR movies were better than the books. For example, that Tom Bombadil episode in the first book was beyond silly. And all those poems in the "elfin" language were painfully boring.

I will give you your opinion because you actually read the books. You're terribly wrong, of course, as the books are vastly superior, even compared to the excellent movies, but you have earned the right to have the opinion. Skimming does not count.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am with SU here. I think the LOR movies were better than the books. For example, that Tom Bombadil episode in the first book was beyond silly. And all those poems in the "elfin" language were painfully boring.

Originally Posted by creekster

I will give you your opinion because you actually read the books. You're terribly wrong, of course, as the books are vastly superior, even compared to the excellent movies, but you have earned the right to have the opinion. Skimming does not count.

Frankly, it's difficult to compare the one medium to the other. The one aspect in which the films surpass the original material is in their use of women as substantial characters. The lack of strong female figures has always been a weakness in Tolkien's work, and one that particularly annoys me. I was impressed with how the film increased the presence of the women while remaining true to the spirit of the work.

Honestly, I found the films uncomfortably - almost painfully - long. And Gollum didn't look right at all.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Frankly, it's difficult to compare the one medium to the other. The one aspect in which the films surpass the original material is in their use of women as substantial characters. The lack of strong female figures has always been a weakness in Tolkien's work, and one that particularly annoys me. I was impressed with how the film increased the presence of the women while remaining true to the spirit of the work.

Honestly, I found the films uncomfortably - almost painfully - long. And Gollum didn't look right at all.

Good points. Gollum wasn't right, but I ended up living with it. It did increase women characters. But on balance, My opinion is the books are better. Much better.

My real point here is only that skimming hte books, especially books of this type (fanatsy that seek to immerse you in another world) does not qualify you to make this sort fo evaluaiton.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by creekster

Good points. Gollum wasn't right, but I ended up living with it. It did increase women characters. But on balance, My opinion is the books are better. Much better.

My real point here is only that skimming hte books, especially books of this type (fanatsy that seek to immerse you in another world) does not qualify you to make this sort fo evaluaiton.

I would respond to your post but I only skimmed it. kee hee!

I understand your point. It seems like a given, but maybe that's just me. I find it hard to believe Seattle's never read Tolkien. Surely he's pulling our collective leg.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

Good points. Gollum wasn't right, but I ended up living with it. It did increase women characters. But on balance, My opinion is the books are better. Much better.

My real point here is only that skimming hte books, especially books of this type (fanatsy that seek to immerse you in another world) does not qualify you to make this sort fo evaluaiton.

Creekster is, of course right but for some reason I just want to disagree with him about his literary views. I think it goes back to the pain he caused when he disparaged Pride and Prejudice.. Oh well, at least he didn't say anything about Persuasion.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Creekster is, of course right but for some reason I just want to disagree with him about his literary views. I think it goes back to the pain he caused when he disparaged Pride and Prejudice.. Oh well, at least he didn't say anything about Persuasion.

asking whether the Pride and Prejudice movie is better than the book is like asking if you prefer to have your eyes put out with a red hot poker or by a wild animal.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I would respond to your post but I only skimmed it. kee hee!

I understand your point. It seems like a given, but maybe that's just me. I find it hard to believe Seattle's never read Tolkien. Surely he's pulling our collective leg.

People have critiqued the Tolkien books for a lack of feminine virtues, but as a boy that aspect didn't even affect me.

However, creekster is wise beyond his immense years in recognizing the strength of the fantasy is the immersion in another world made real and plausible through its descriptive power. And the fact that Tolkien merges certain aspects of Celtic and Saxon tongue with some Old English to form his new languages is genius. The linguist in me has always been amazed at the ease with which he did that.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

asking whether the Pride and Prejudice movie is better than the book is like asking if you prefer to have your eyes put out with a red hot poker or by a wild animal.

Oh the anguish; another day of melancholy awaits me.

You're slipping because in this case it is painfully obvious that you are only half right.

[ERCougar]

LOTR books were much better. I liked the movies, but like Barbara said, they were painfully long. With The Fellowship especially, it just seemed like he was trying to cram too much into the movie.