So from what I've been told, the books are a straight downgrade from the movies?
>balrogs aren't cool diablo-looking winged demons
>boromir didn't reconcile with aragorn by recognizing him as his king before his death
>the books dedicate pages to describing the texture of roads
>aragorn isn't a reluctant hero with development
>sam isn't as inspirational
>smeagol isn't as charismatic and cute
>sam and frodo don't have a falling out and reconciliation (ties into sam being inspirational and dependable)
>the orcs don't have badass and funny lines that give them character like "meat is back on the menu boys"
>aragorn and others don't bow to the hobbits
Sure, learning more about the lore/world is cool. But the STORY sucks ass comparatively in the books right?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>the books are a straight downgrade
the books have tom in them though
The unexplained OP self-insert where the Hobbits spend an inordinate amount of time because why not?
My theory is that, if you believe that Tolkien didn't write the book but translated it from an old copy of world history that Sam personally kept and maintained, then Tom Bombadil makes sense as a kind of Hobbit myth added into the text to give that myth credence.
I liken it to the entire Marvel Cast appearing in the 9/11 comic books. A real event with fictional characters added in.
If the only record of 9/11 you has, 1000 years from now was this comic book would you understand that Doctor Doom doesn't exist?
They made Doom look like a b***h
God I hate that issue so fricking much it's unreal.
Genocidal maniacs that regularly kill civilians and don't even bat an eye are suddenly crying because muh twin towers, even though most of them aren't even american.
Exactly
books are better
You are posting bait, but I genuinely do like the movies better then the books. The books are still worth reading doe
It's not just bait. Those are things I heard about the books and they seem like a downgrade.
All those changed were made by a fat woman
The movies are for meatheads.
>We REALLY needed those 28 scenes of Arwen.
>So from what I've been told, the books are a straight downgrade from the movies?
who the frick lied to you? READ homie, READ.
Rings of power mogs them both
>imagine being an orc and traveling 1000 miles from deepest mordor to lorien only to get shot by a homie elf like this
This is exactly why ASOIAF is better. People compare the LOTR movies to GoT but the more valid comparison - and one in which GRRM comes out on top - is between the books. ASOIAF is a well written, modern narrative. LOTR just isn't that kind of style, and it suffers for it. Granted, Peter Jackson fixes the books and made movies that are better than GoT.
Maybe if you're reading skills were better than a 5 year old's you wouldn't have the opinion of an imbecile.
LOTR is a finished story.
Dora the Explorer is a finished story. Berserk is an unfinished story. Which is better?
The fact something is "finished" is important, but not decisive when comparing it to another story.
NTA but Dora the Explorer is better
Does Beserk have a talking monkey? Didn't think so
Yeah, Isidoro.
and wyald the penis ape
the one that doesn't start with the protag getting raped
why did swiper do it bros
Dora is unironlically better
>ASOIAF is well written
I like LOTR, but I love ASOIAF.
I genuinely greatly prefer reading George RR martins work, and I found myself struggling to get through LOTR
The meme that these books are all long-winded descriptions of unnecessary things is so wildly overblown it's not even funny. Tolkein's writing is so beautiful and immersive it never feels like it overstays it's welcome. The Ride of the Rohirrim could be poetry. You want long-winded, try reading "IT". King must have been really strung out for that one because the story is basically over by page 8 or 9 hundred but he just keeps going explaining every random detail about the town for what feels like another 200 pages. I had to start skimming to not fall asleep.
The book and film compliment each other. There are some things I think the films do better, but nothing will compare to the book version of Aragorn's arrival at Pelennor Fields. It might be the most magical moment in all of literature.
Also true. The beauty of Tolkien's writing is total and complete. The English language has never been so incredibly portrayed.
>It might be the most magical moment in all of literature.
Please read The Pentateuch.
>The English language has never been so incredibly portrayed.
Please read Shakespeare.
>Please read Shakespeare.
lmfao no one cares about how he used language. shit's not even modern.
Books are better but the movies are great! Hobbit book is also essential.
They are a downgrade from the card game
Balrogs aren't building sized fire and smoke demons (which are cool) they are dreadful, evil, fire and darkness demons (which are also cool).
>books have have goldberrys spouse
>movies don’t
the better media is clear
I like the Lord of the Rings movies and Dune 2021 but neither of them will ever be equal to the books.
i disliked dune 2021 but liked the book. albeit the book's ending felt rushed as hell.
That sucks. Boromir's last minute redemption and acknowledgement of Aragorn was kino.
yep one of the best scenes in the movies. boromir is just another generic homosexual in the books.
?t=137
>The only thing is in the books [compared to the 1978 adaption] it’s less of a punishment and more of a redemption, he basically throws his whole house, one of the most prestigious and ancient of all of Gondor, away to die for his hobbit friends, he can’t do anything for Frodo but he makes sure to help his friends. The theme of the book is choices, Boromir could have chosen to hide because “I’m too important to die for some hobbits” but ultimately chooses to do the right thing and abandoned the idea of “evil for good reasons “ (which is what he wanted the ring for)
wait so boromir's death in the books is actually good?
Done reply to Zoomer morons. They all share the same brain cell
?t=7852
hobitit did it better
No, most of the best scenes and lines of dialogue are directly from the book, sometimes the lines get switched to other characters and places though.
The only change in the movies I kind of miss in the book is when Saruman is standing on top of Orthanc commanding a storm to come down on the fellowship climbing Carhadras.
I agree, it makes Saruman more of a persistent danger to the fellowship, and not just some dickhead mountain with a grudge who laughs at them for some reason.
yeah but faramir was a lot more interesting here's his response to frodo asking if he's gonna' take the ring from him
>‘But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.’
>For myself,’ said Faramir, ‘I would see the White Tree inflower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves.
>War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Nu´menor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise.
he was a lot smarter
>So from what I've been told, the books are a straight downgrade from the movies?
Nah as someone who watched the movies first, not really. It's more that Fellowship of the Ring is a really, really hard book to adapt. Very slow start with a lot of descriptions of roads and singing and shit, a lot of which got cut out of the movie. As the books go on the pacing gets faster and faster and it's one iconic chapter after the other once you start getting about a third of the way through Two Towers. I think the movies and the books are about equal overall. It's just that the first half of Fellowship of the Ring is brutally slowly paced and if you've seen the movie it can be a huge filter.
>So from what I've been told, the books are a straight downgrade from the movies?
So you haven't read the books? Doesn't that make your opinion on the matter invalid?
> from what I've been told, the books are a straight downgrade from the movies?
Literally nobody told you that. Weak bait
Whoever told you that is a dumb redditor
The first film is my favorite. It has a grander scale of adventure and although they just left the shire, the stakes feel a lot higher. Frodo escaping the orcs at the end is more exciting than him destroying the ring. We also lose Gandalf and Boromir. Gandalf comes back in the second and I don't think anyone else important dies. Watching Frodo get torn down and more depressed is way too realistic for a fantasy setting. At the end he is just happy to go back home. He saved the entire world and you don't feel a huge sense of accomplishment. You're just glad it has a happy ending. I know that's why it's so popular, but I prefer Fellowship extended cut as a standalone film. I've probably seen it a dozen times and only watched the others 3 times.
>Gandalf comes back in the second and I don't think anyone else important dies.
Sam is more inspirational in the books because he just doesn't start out as some inspirational paragon. He was a bumbling, hot headed youth who relied heavily on the older, wiser, more confident Frodo.
One of the things that the movies left out was a whole subplot in between when Frodo "dies" to Shelob, and the fakeout, then the rescue mission. Sam has to come to terms with his master, who he relied upon all this time, being dead. He has to come to terms with going on through Mordor alone, and being tempted by the ring. It was a lot more interesting and inspiration than the dumbass lembas bread thing in the movies.
>a healthy mix of weaker moments in the movies as well as things that are actually both in the movie and books
Well done. Keep adding to it, I hope to see it posted tomorrow too. Like you could have something about the books missing the movie's humor.
Nice b8 m8
They're just different.