Is FOTR movie better than the book???

[Congerking]

I loved FOTR, it is probably in the top 5 best movies IMO. but i have not read the book. after seeing the movie, do you think that the book is worth reading???

[Tuukka]

Since LOTR is my favourite book of all time, and I have read a lot, I would say yes. However, it is not an easy read. It's loooooong, detailed, filled with poetic language. And most importantly it starts off very slowly, many people give up after the first 100-200 pages. I would say that the story really starts catching up midway through FOTR and then it just gets better and better in TTT and ROTK.

Give it a try, but don't be surprised if you don't like it.

[dh1989]

They are so different. The film, I must say, is easier. You can just let the epic sweep you up and sit back and watch for three hours, while reading Tolkien's novel is sometimes a bit trying. I almost gvae up when the hobbits were going to Bree, but my friends kept earging me to go on and I did and it was spectacular. If you just want to have an easy and relaxing access to Middle Earth, watch Jackson's brilliant films, but if you crave the whole experience reading the novels are a must for all the characters left out of the films and the wonderful poetry-like words. I say 50/50 on your topic.

[areyoubeingserved]

I found the first book dry as the Sahara, but the second improves vastly.

[Congerking]

i see, i see. thanx a lot guys.

[Zed]

They are very different types of art.

Is Da Vinci's "Monalisa", better than the Michaelangelo's "Venus" ? :confused:


I really think is imposible to tell. The same thing happens with the film and the book, they are different types of art.....both excellent in my opinion?


PS: I highly recommend you to read the books. Even after watching the whole trilogy, it whould be an excellent experience.

[LordKaruku]

Probably the biggest reason for fans of the film to read the books is to understand the "why" of things. Watching the film gives you no clear idea of why the elves are leaving Middle Earth, or why Boromir doesn't like Aragorn at first, or why Merry & Pippin come along with Frodo, as well as many other things. In fact one of the impressive aspects of the adaptation is how much of this stuff PJ glosses over without leaving non-book readers feeling confused.

[Congerking]

you are right. i didn't read the books and while watching the movie, i never thought of what you said. i didn't know why borimir hated aragon, but i could probably guess. the same with my merry and pippin go with frodo.

[KaMiKaZ3]

to be honest, i dont think the movie is as good as the book, and i think the movie is fing brilliant. shows how much i love the book really.

the book has all the little explanations about why things are happening, and what ppl are thinking, which just cannot be done on screen too well, especially in the limited time available.

if you want a true lord of the rings experience, you have to read the hobbit to get the back story, and then read lotr cover to cover. it really is amazing. wnadering a bit off thread now, but it is also worth reading the silmarillian, which does the whole history thing.

Jackson has done an amazing job with it, but it just cant compete with everything Tolkien.

[xirtam]

This is pretty much the only book that I can't say is better than the movie, or worse. They are exactly the same in quality, I think, except that the book doesn't worry about budget or running time. :D I read the first book after seeing the movie, and then I read the other two books. (Although I read The Hobbit a long time before the movie came out--read this before the trilogy) Reading FOTR is sort of like watching an extended version of the movie; more dialogue, more scenes, more characters, more places, and of course, a whole lot of poems. (The first one has a LOT of poems--like one on every five pages--although the second has almost none, and the third has a few) So if you think it will be better or worse than the movie, you should read the book anyway.

[greywanderer]

In my life, which is yet just a whopping 23 years, I have only seen TWO movies that were ever better then the books they were made from, those being The Last of the Mohicans and The Godfather.....while Fellowship of the Ring is most definitly in my top five movies of all time list, it cannot compare to the detail and writing skill of the book it was birthed from.

[MrBlack]

I thoroughly enjoyed the books, they never really got old to me- even the first half of FOTR. The movie is an art in it's own form, thats all I can say, and it is a brilliant one at that. You cannot incorporate the sheer detail of the books into the movie, the encompass is huge. That is why, after viewing the FOTR DVD through and through, I can understand that the backdrop in which the story of LOTR takes place is represented in visual detail- the best solution to pleasing both sides of the viewing audience (readers / non-readers). Anyway, a book in my mind is something that is always better than the movie; everything seems less interpreted to the reader.

[KcMsterpce]

I read Hobbit, FOTR, TTT and 300 pages of ROTK when I was 14 years old, on my own, in about a 6 week span. I had to quit, because it was just waaayyyy too much hobbit shit and Middle Earth for me in that short of time.

The thing I remember most from the book while watching the movie is how perfect Gandalf was portrayed by Ian McKellan.

After watching the movie 6 times in theater, I purchased TTT and ROTK books, and read them with basically only the knowlege I had from FOTR movie, because it was 10 years since I read the books.
Honest to God, I think you can get by with just watching the movie if you want to skip FOTR the book and go right into the next two in the series. There are definetely a FEW moments that will be lost to you (for example, there were many references to Boromir's bravery against 'the wolves', and I don't remember that part at all in the book. Oh, and they say Boromir was the last to leave Moria while Aragorn led the fellowship out, since he was the only one who knew the way. Wasn't like that in the movie, but who should really care?). If you don't read the first book, I highly recommend you watch the director's cut on DVD, and are familiar with the names and places. That will help a lot.

I'm amazed at how nicely abridged the movie was from the book. With so much going on, there are things that HAVE to be cut to save time and confusion. LOTR is not an easy task to bring to the screen and still make sense. People had a hard time with "Dune", and I think that's as comparable in difficulty to bring to the screen. I happen to like "Dune", but a lot of people don't. hehe

As for the books... I don't like Tolkien's style of writing... he says 'presently' almost every other fucking page, and it really got on my nerves!! Plus, his writing style isn't to my tastes, but the STORY is a lot of fun! The movies will KICK MAJOR ASS (I hope).
I didn't mind reading them when I was done, because the adventure outweighed the incompatible writing style.

The End.