Thank goodness for the books

[Beleg Strongbow]

With the release of the new movie, The Two Towers, and it's enourmous departure from Tolkien's plotline, I feel very greatful for the books. I started reading TTT again last night, and it's so much better than the movie I can't tell you. It's good to know that Tolkien's story still exists outside of Peter Jackson's version. (having a community of fellow tolkienites helps) :D

[Millane]

sorry for my laughing but your dislike for the movie is laughable when your avator is the Aragorn from themovie
its probly just me
and i cant pass judgement as the movie isnt out in australia yet so dont spoil my hopes yet

[Celebréiel]

Beleg I know exactly what you mean. The second after I got home from the movie I stared reading TT again. :D Ive also decided to invest more money(that I had planned on getting movie stuff's with) on other JRR Tolkien books.
~Celebréiel

[Beleg Strongbow]

Originally posted by Millane
sorry for my laughing but your dislike for the movie is laughable when your avator is the Aragorn from themovie
its probly just me
and i cant pass judgement as the movie isnt out in australia yet so dont spoil my hopes yet

oh. that's true. But I liked the FOTR movie! and TTT was ok. I don't have a serious dislike... I'm just saying how grateful I am for the book. Celebréiel understands.

[Falagar]

Nothing can beat Tolkiens books. Ever.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

I really liked the movie!!
But there were quite a few changes from the book!! As I knew what happened in the book I constantly knew what had gone wrong! I think at the moment I do preffer the book!!
But I still loved the movie!

[azalea]

The tone of this thread makes me feel it belongs in the movie forum. Moving.

[Sister Golden Hair]

There is a true advantage to reading and knowing the books before you see the movie. The books are the real story and can't be topped. I loved the movie TTT. Eventhough there were things out of context, I still love how it was developed and played out. I knew it didn't happen that way in the books, and that probably made me a little more tolerable to it because it was done so well, that I accept it for the movie. One who hasn't read the books can not and will not appreciate the difference, and unfortunately the books may take in thier mind when they do read them a back seat. It is like things happening in reverse. I am glad that I can go to the movie with the foreknoledge of what the books hold, and be able to tell the difference and still appreciate the movie and maintain my steadfast love for what the real story holds.

I think considering how complicated the story is, the movie could not be better. A well done job in my book.

[BeardofPants]

I actually think that PJ breaking away from the story so much worked in his favour. Instead of being a weak Tolkien adaption, he's actually given the project his own unique stamp. I really liked this movie, which is surprising. I expected to really hate it, because of its deviances.

[Beleg Strongbow]

It's a story, but it's not The Lord of the Rings. It is a good movie but my point was how much I appreciate the books given the deviations.

[Devey]

What movie is ever better than the book? It is unrealistic to expect it to be as the media is different and far harder for the film producer in the short space of time that a film runs for to convey all the details that the author has written. On top of this the reader has a pre-concieved idea of how it should look, what the characters look/sound/act like and this bias is very difficult to overcome.

By all means go back to the book, after all it is wonderful stuff but treat the film for what it is, a spectacular adaptation of Tolkiens work, beautifully filmed, full of wonderful effects, well plotted, well acted, terrific piece of theatre.

[Sween]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I actually think that PJ breaking away from the story so much worked in his favour. Instead of being a weak Tolkien adaption, he's actually given the project his own unique stamp. I really liked this movie, which is surprising. I expected to really hate it, because of its deviances.

has the beard been tamed?

[Helix]

Originally posted by Devey
What movie is ever better than the book? It is unrealistic to expect it to be as the media is different and far harder for the film producer in the short space of time that a film runs for to convey all the details that the author has written. On top of this the reader has a pre-concieved idea of how it should look, what the characters look/sound/act like and this bias is very difficult to overcome.
I understand that the film could not come exactly from the books, as film is a medium very different from the printed word. I agree with a lot of things that PJ did to change the books into films (like removing Bombadil - he was cool, but would have made the movie way too long, and the scouring of the Shire - it is would be much more anti-climactic in a movie). But often in TT, PJ changed things that didn't need to be changed at all, just for fun. With such a great story to begin with, why change it unnecessarily?

[Hasty Ent]

The books are a treasure -- and having read the recent posts on TTT, I'm not sure I even want to see it...:( FoTR was close enough in spirit, but going back to the book pointed out how much richer a literary vision is to a cinematic one. Some adaptations work OK (I think of Huston's version of James Joyce's The Dead), but ultimately, I've always felt that books are the better ticket to other worlds. Making movies out of beloved literary works is dangerous business, fraught with peril, and I respect PJ for attempting such a thing.

[LuthienTinuviel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I really liked this movie.

:eek:

maybe i will go see it afer all. i mean, if you liked it, it's got to be well done indeed.

[Yazad]

That's of course the tough one. I think there are two clear examples, IMO. I think Kubrick's The Shinning and Redford's The Horse Whisperer are two very clear examples of films that are better, deeper and even more enjoyable than the books, but I think that's a matter of taste, of course.

Personally I think it's wonderful when a director can interpret another artist's work and show us what s/he thinks of it. The problem, IMO, is when a film becomes "THE MOVIE", usurps the book and obviates the "need" for another theatrical version. I can't tell you how many people who had read the book previously came to me after seeing the Jackson movie and said, "Well Gandalf never touched the ring", and I said, "ummm, yes he did, he tossed it into the fire," and they said, "No I read the book, and it was in an envelope". Huh???

Weird.

Also (another shameless plug) for the commuter and the slow reader - might I re-suggest the Rob Inglis (Recorded Books) unabridged "reading" of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. These are available for purchase on the mass market now and often available from public libraries (in the US). Mr. Inglis is an absolute master at this. You couldn't ask for a better performance, and as it's unabridged it should please everyone. It's a great way to brush up on the tale on your two hour/day commute.

Yazad

[Beleg Strongbow]

Originally posted by Helix
But often in TT, PJ changed things that didn't need to be changed at all, just for fun. With such a great story to begin with, why change it unnecessarily?

Possible spoiler alert
(but not bad enough to format)


Actually, some of the changes that weren't necessary, such as adding the battle between the Warg-Riders and the Rohirrim, looked very good. What I'm pointing out is that there is something about the book that no movie can ever capture. And I'm very glad that we have the books.

[Cirdan]

I liked the move very much but it certainly made me appreciate Tolkien's meticulus story telling even more. If you can watch a movie that good and still see failings of character development or plot, it just shows that the storyline in the book is tight and solid. I look forward to enjoying both, but the books will be a treasure forever.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Helix
With such a great story to begin with, why change it unnecessarily?

I agree that some of the changes were unnecessary... but, they worked. And why not change it? It's HIS movie. He didn't deviate much with fellowship, and that was, IMO, a weaker movie. The deviations worked within the film medium. Most of them made some sense. It made sense that the elves would march to helm's deep; it made sense that Faramir would be deeply suspicious of two travellers in Ithilien; it made sense that he'd want to use whatever means in his power to defeat Sauron -- even if that meant taking the ring back to Gondor (glad he 'saw the light' at the end though.)

I have come to appreciate PJ's story telling as a completely SEPARATE piece of work from that of Tolkien's. Fellowship still sucks royally though.

[Helix]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I It's HIS movie.

I doubt you could say that it is his movie, with such an involved fanbase.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I have come to appreciate PJ's story telling as a completely SEPARATE piece of work from that of Tolkien's.
That's probably the best way to appreciate both the books and the movie.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Helix
I doubt you could say that it is his movie, with such an involved fanbase.

But he doesn't have to listen to the fans, does he? :rolleyes: