Dvader said:This was discussed in the post podcast segment. I read the books after watching the movies and I perfer the movies. It's not the books fault, Tolkien spends a lot of time describing stuff that I have seen in the movie, therefore as I read I don't need the description cause in my mind I already see it. Of course the action is no where near as good, writing about a war is far more boring that showing a war on screen. That said the characters are more fleshed out and its still fantastic.The book must have been extremely exciting to read if one did not know what was going to happen next, I of course do so it loses all of its tension.
This reminded me of a stand-up comedian I saw on Channel 4 saying how obnoxious people were who insisted that the Harry Potter books are better than the movies and said that people who preferred the movie just have no imagination. He said something like "Yeah? Well I do have imagination. And what I imagine when I'm reading a book ... is a movie!"
___
Listen to Wu-Tang and watch Kung-Fu
bugsonglass said:This reminded me of a stand-up comedian I saw on Channel 4 saying how obnoxious people were who insisted that the Harry Potter books are better than the movies and said that people who preferred the movie just have no imagination. He said something like "Yeah? Well I do have imagination. And what I imagine when I'm reading a book ... is a movie!"
Surely he could have used an analysis involving a better adaptation than the Harry Potter films?!
The thing about the LOTR action scenes, though, is they're not meant to be some flashy pulp tostesterone fest, so if you're expecting that from them then of course the film will be better, as that is exactly what it does well.
Foolz said:Surely he could have used an analysis involving a better adaptation than the Harry Potter films?!
The thing about the LOTR action scenes, though, is they're not meant to be some flashy pulp tostesterone fest, so if you're expecting that from them then of course the film will be better, as that is exactly what it does well.
it was very tongue in cheek
___
Listen to Wu-Tang and watch Kung-Fu
Yodariquo said:aspro said:Okay... so is the LotR any good as a book? I always figured it would be like C.S.Lewis (which is good, I just never read much fiction other than Asimov or Arthur C. Clark after I was 14).The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are excellent as books. Stay the hell away from anything else by Tolkien, though.
The hell? The Simarillion and Unfinished Tales are a must read.
Dvader said:This was discussed in the post podcast segment. I read the books after watching the movies and I perfer the movies. It's not the books fault, Tolkien spends a lot of time describing stuff that I have seen in the movie, therefore as I read I don't need the description cause in my mind I already see it. Of course the action is no where near as good, writing about a war is far more boring that showing a war on screen. That said the characters are more fleshed out and its still fantastic.The book must have been extremely exciting to read if one did not know what was going to happen next, I of course do so it loses all of its tension.
This makes me laugh and shake my head at the same time. The action isn't as good?
Dvader said:This was discussed in the post podcast segment. I read the books after watching the movies and I perfer the movies. It's not the books fault, Tolkien spends a lot of time describing stuff that I have seen in the movie, therefore as I read I don't need the description cause in my mind I already see it. Of course the action is no where near as good, writing about a war is far more boring that showing a war on screen. That said the characters are more fleshed out and its still fantastic.The book must have been extremely exciting to read if one did not know what was going to happen next, I of course do so it loses all of its tension.
I am at a loss of words.
Vader, reading your post was like reading that thread where the guy compared Super Mario World to Oblivion.
I just can't understand it. I can't believe that people read books for the action. When I read a book that was then translated into a movie I usually find that the book, because of the medium - it has the chance to flesh out in detail things that the movie glosses over. If it was a light on content book that could be adequetely covered in a movie then sure. But for LOTR especially there is so much background and detail there that can't be covered in film.
And seriously, if you are a fan of the LOTR story, book or movies, you are doing yourself a dis-service by not reading the Simillarion and the Unfinished Tales. There is so much about LOTR that you don't know, like who and what Gandalf really is, where the giant spider came from, who and what Sauron really is. Why the Gods don't interfere and save humanity because of humanity's betrayel. Or about Aragorn and his bloodline, or the origins of Minis Tirith (spelt wrongly).
Or even things like who and what the Balrogs are, or what Khazadum is.
gamingeek said:Vader, reading your post was like reading that thread where the guy compared Super Mario World to Oblivion.
I just can't understand it. I can't believe that people read books for the action. When I read a book that was then translated into a movie I usually find that the book, because of the medium - it has the chance to flesh out in detail things that the movie glosses over. If it was a light on content book that could be adequetely covered in a movie then sure. But for LOTR especially there is so much background and detail there that can't be covered in film.
And seriously, if you are a fan of the LOTR story, book or movies, you are doing yourself a dis-service by not reading the Simillarion and the Unfinished Tales. There is so much about LOTR that you don't know, like who and what Gandalf really is, where the giant spider came from, who and what Sauron really is. Why the Gods don't interfere and save humanity because of humanity's betrayel. Or about Aragorn and his bloodline, or the origins of Minis Tirith (spelt wrongly).
Or even things like who and what the Balrogs are, or what Khazadum is.
I didn't say I am reading LOTR for action, its part of the story you can't ignore it. I am simply stating which areas the movie handled better. I think scenes depicting war is better suited for a visual medium.
Oh and movies have better music as well. 
I heard the Similarion sucks. (From Yoda)
Dvader said:I heard the Similarion sucks. (From Yoda)
It doesn't suck. It's just that is not a cohesive work like LotR or The Hobbit, but more of a collection of separate works that help to fully flesh out the background of the Tolkien universe. It's a heavier read, but some of the stories told in there are well worth a read.
The story of Beren and Luthien, or the one of Turin and Glaurung are just a couple examples of kickass stuff that happens during the time of legends that many LotR characters refer to.
SteelAttack said:It doesn't suck. It's just that is not a cohesive work like LotR or The Hobbit, but more of a collection of separate works that help to fully flesh out the background of the Tolkien universe. It's a heavier read, but some of the stories told in there are well worth a read.
The story of Beren and Luthien, or the one of Turin and Glaurung are just a couple examples of kickass stuff that happens during the time of legends that many LotR characters refer to.
this sums up the silmarillion perfectly.
i don't understand why you guys grabbed dvader by the neck for what he said. i think you hold the book on a high pedestal or something. personally, i see vader's point regarding action sequences in LOTR. i think you are taking a "high horse" stand and refusing to consider that anything other than Tolkien's holy book can do an equally good (or in some instances better) job in telling the story. dvader said that he was specifically talking about the battle scenes. not about character development, or depth, or background, or the work on the whole. his point is valid. whether i agree with it or not i don't know as i haven't seen the movies yet
___
Listen to Wu-Tang and watch Kung-Fu
gamingeek said:aspro said:Okay... so is the LotR any good as a book? I always figured it would be like C.S.Lewis (which is good, I just never read much fiction other than Asimov or Arthur C. Clark after I was 14).It was named as the Book of the Century. At first it's tough to get into because of the terminology and various names for things. For instance once person or location may have several different names.
...
Probably not for me then, that's why I can't get into Russian literature.
bugsonglass said:this sums up the silmarillion perfectly.
i don't understand why you guys grabbed dvader by the neck for what he said. i think you hold the book on a high pedestal or something. personally, i see vader's point regarding action sequences in LOTR. i think you are taking a "high horse" stand and refusing to consider that anything other than Tolkien's holy book can do an equally good (or in some instances better) job in telling the story. dvader said that he was specifically talking about the battle scenes. not about character development, or depth, or background, or the work on the whole. his point is valid. whether i agree with it or not i don't know as i haven't seen the movies yet
WTF.
Anyway you get what I am saying. 
Guess that's why I did so bad on my SATs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Playing: Golden Sun Dark Dawn, God of War Ghost of Sparta, and DKC Returns
bugsonglass said:i don't understand why you guys grabbed dvader by the neck for what he said. i think you hold the book on a high pedestal or something. personally, i see vader's point regarding action sequences in LOTR. i think you are taking a "high horse" stand and refusing to consider that anything other than Tolkien's holy book can do an equally good (or in some instances better) job in telling the story. dvader said that he was specifically talking about the battle scenes. not about character development, or depth, or background, or the work on the whole. his point is valid. whether i agree with it or not i don't know as i haven't seen the movies yet
Eh, it's just friendly banter, nothing more. Nobody's jumping at each other's throats over this. No pedestals or high horses involved. Let me say this, though, I have read the books, and I have seen the films, and I can tell you, as enjoyable as the battle scenes might be, they do a less-than-adequate job at accurately depicting the content in the books. The director and screewriters might have had their reasons to do so, but that doesn't make it any less jarring.
I'm open to the possibility of a different vessel, other than the actual books, being capable of telling the story of LotR as good or better than the original, it's just that the set of Jackson directed movies aren't that vessel, as enjoyable as they might be.
aspro said:Probably not for me then, that's why I can't get into Russian literature.
With russian writers, everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY) has a fully fleshed-out backstory behind them. Not only the main characters. Even the second assistant to the guy who takes care of the horses in some forgotten-ass military division has a story to tell about his aged, ill mother and his little brother who wants to be a soldier just like his dead father.
SteelAttack said:Eh, it's just friendly banter, nothing more. Nobody's jumping at each other's throats over this. No pedestals or high horses involved. Let me say this, though, I have read the books, and I have seen the films, and I can tell you, as enjoyable as the battle scenes might be, they do a less-than-adequate job at accurately depicting the content in the books. The director and screewriters might have had their reasons to do so, but that doesn't make it any less jarring.
I'm open to the possibility of a different vessel, other than the actual books, being capable of telling the story of LotR as good or better than the original, it's just that the set of Jackson directed movies aren't that vessel, as enjoyable as they might be.
I know a lot of content was left out but I honestly don't see how you get movies that do a better job than the ones we got. It gave us the core of the story, exactly what was needed to be shown. And the Extended Editions really help with some of the fleshing out. I wouldn't mind a 15 hour trilogy but its not possible.
Dvader said:I know a lot of content was left out but I honestly don't see how you get movies that do a better job than the ones we got. It gave us the core of the story, exactly what was needed to be shown.
A limited amount of altered/changed content, barely enough to know what is going on hardly qualifies as doing an "equally good or better" job at telling the story, which is the point I was trying to make.
SteelAttack said:A limited amount of altered/changed content, barely enough to know what is going on hardly qualifies as doing an "equally good or better" job at telling the story, which is the point I was trying to make.
Barely enough to know what is going on, what are you talking about, you know exactly what is going on in the movies.
Dvader said:Barely enough to know what is going on, what are you talking about, you know exactly what is going on in the movies.
Really? Did you know exactly why the Wraith King was killed by Merry's blade?
Oh god I sound like such a fucking nerd.
Let's just forget about this. I'm not trying to say the movies are inferior or whatever. If someone enjoys the movies over the books, more power to them. But I won't accept the notion that the movies portray the story (or parts of them, like battles) told in the books even better than the books themselves.