Movies better than the book

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

Are you sure you read the right books? Seriously, I can't believe you're saying this...but to each his own, I guess.

I find the characters, outside of Sam, to be quite plain and cardboard. I have found this to be the case and have read the entire series at least twice. The characters are, for the most part, quite generic with very little depth of complexity. Want to see multi-faceted characters read the "Song of Fire and Ice" series. As I understand the LOTR it is more about the epic quest and events than the individual characters. It's always how I've read the books. I am huge character guy. If I find a character in a book (even a minor character) I like, I will read the book voraciously. None of the characters in LOTR were all that well-developed enough to like. Cool in their own way, yes, just not too complex. The movies brought some of the more complex character stuff out much, much better.

[Peregrine]

I think it's fair to say that the movies are really a different interpretation of the Lord of the Rings, separate from the books. There is more detail about the characters, but that's because that's stuff that Jackson and the other screenwriters pretty much made up. Not that that's a problem, but I don't think it's a case of them "bringing out" more character depth, but pretty much writing it in as needed to suit their own vision of the book, which was definitely different than Tolkien's.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I think it's fair to say that the movies are really a different interpretation of the Lord of the Rings, separate from the books. There is more detail about the characters, but that's because that's stuff that Jackson and the other screenwriters pretty much made up. Not that that's a problem, but I don't think it's a case of them "bringing out" more character depth, but pretty much writing it in as needed to suit their own vision of the book, which was definitely different than Tolkien's.

I hear that. I do. I guess what it comes down to is that I prefer Jackson's vision to Tolkien's. I felt that the changes he made, for the most part, were an improvement on the books. I liked what he did with the characters and the world he was given.

I challenge anyone to read the chapter in Two Towers concerning Helms Deep and then watch the movie and honestly say that what is described in the book is better than what ended up on screen.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I challenge anyone to read the chapter in Two Towers concerning Helms Deep and then watch the movie and honestly say that what is described in the book is better than what ended up on screen.

I believe that the book is better. I really do. In fact, I was disappointed by the scene at Helms Deep in the film. I enjoyed the literary version much more.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

I believe that the book is better. I really do. In fact, I was disappointed by the scene at Helms Deep in the film. I enjoyed the literary version much more.

Really? The literary version is all of what? 20 pages or so? Very little detail and has Aragorn running around yelling "Andruil! Andruil!" Little sense of drama. Little sense of dread. Little sense of the sheer hopelessness of the situation. Also, the scene with Gandalf leading the cavalry charge down the mountain side ranks as one of the best scenes on film. ever. The book does not do justice to its beauty and majesty. Then again, maybe I am just a visual person.

[Ryche]

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Really? The literary version is all of what? 20 pages or so? Very little detail and has Aragorn running around yelling "Andruil! Andruil!" Little sense of drama. Little sense of dread. Little sense of the sheer hopelessness of the situation. Also, the scene with Gandalf leading the cavalry charge down the mountain side ranks as one of the best scenes on film. ever. The book does not do justice to its beauty and majesty. Then again, maybe I am just a visual person.

You mean other than the fact that he leads a cavalry charge right into a wall of pikemen and crashes through it with very little effort? I understand, it's a movie...and a fantasy at that, but you have to give a nod to the fact that the pike/spear wall is very effective against cavalry. In can be broken by horse, but it's coming at a terrible price. Seemed like a breeze for Gandalf and his super soldiers.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

You mean other than the fact that he leads a cavalry charge right into a wall of pikemen and crashes through it with very little effort? I understand, it's a movie...and a fantasy at that, but you have to give a nod to the fact that the pike/spear wall is very effective against cavalry. In can be broken by horse, but it's coming at a terrible price. Seemed like a breeze for Gandalf and his super soldiers.

Gandalf cast a spell right before the calvary charge hit the pike/spear wall, basically blinding every orc or uruk-hai in the front ranks. This forced them to lower/move their spears making the wall almost useless. Watch the movie again, not only is the sun in their eyes (and orcs hate the sunlight and uruk-hai too, to a less extent) but there was that bright flash from Gandalf's staff. Call it a blind spell, a confusion spell, what have you. That was what made the charge so effective against the pike/spear wall.

He's Gandalf. A pike/spear wall is nothing to him.

[Aylmar]

Can you tell me from just watching the movies why Denethor is crazy? There isn't any mention of the reasoning...and yet his madness is allowed to carry two or three full scenes in the film. I went to see the movie with my Dad (who has never read the books) and the first thing he asked me was "So what was wrong with that guy who wanted to burn himself and Faramir alive?".

After thinking about it some more, I guess you could rationalize it by saying that his grief over Boromir drove him insane, but that's a hollow reason when put alongside the one given in the books.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

I agree whole heartedly with the Anne Rice thing. Interview with A Vampire was one of the few books I actually started reading and never finished. I got to around page 54 and got so sick of it, I stopped. This was even back in the day when I was really into vampires and all that jazz. Hell, I even wrote my own 200 page book about them.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Gandalf cast a spell right before the calvary charge hit the pike/spear wall, basically blinding every orc or uruk-hai in the front ranks. This forced them to lower/move their spears making the wall almost useless. Watch the movie again, not only is the sun in their eyes (and orcs hate the sunlight and uruk-hai too, to a less extent) but there was that bright flash from Gandalf's staff. Call it a blind spell, a confusion spell, what have you. That was what made the charge so effective against the pike/spear wall.

He's Gandalf. A pike/spear wall is nothing to him.

Sounds like he should have done some more spell slinging at Gondor then...especially early in the battle, when the men were getting their asses handed to them. I mean, if he can disrupt entire defensive formations with a flash of his staff, what's so hard about a little hocus pocus when the city is under siege?

I understand that Gandalf is powerful. One of the most powerful beings in Middle-Earth. I still don't like the charge. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can't flurry that away with 'Well, he must have cast a spell'. If he did something, make it more obvious to me. Let me hear the incantation and see the orcs cower in fear before the charge. Don't just show me a bristling pikewall with angry soldiers followed by a couple of flashes of light and then light cavalry shredding through it like it's not even there.

[jaeenox]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Hunt for Red October

I agree. THfRO is by far the best book from Clancy, but the movie is one that I can watch over and over and still enjoy.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I think Interview with the Vampire was much better as a movie. Not that it was that great a movie, but I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing. It was a painful read for me.

Forrest Gump may be another one that falls under this category. Admittedly I've never read Forrest Gump, but I did read the sequel and that may have been the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plot: Gump stumbles into one historical situation after another, none of them being the least bit humorous or thought provoking or anything with redeeming value. Was Forrest Gump decent as a book?

No Forrest Gump was not decent as a book, Gump is different in the book, but then again I read it after I saw Forrest Gump, and Gump is played out to be a gentle soul, in the book he's a little bit sharper, not as wholesome.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree whole heartedly with the Anne Rice thing. Interview with A Vampire was one of the few books I actually started reading and never finished. I got to around page 54 and got so sick of it, I stopped. This was even back in the day when I was really into vampires and all that jazz. Hell, I even wrote my own 200 page book about them.

I think the second and third books in that series were her peak. The first was too flowery, and she just wasn't a good enough writer to carry it off. The second and third books she seemed to hit her stride. By the fourth book, her writing got too watered down.

I thought The Vampire Lestat (the third book I believe) was an excellent read.