|
Post by Maverick-Jedi-Valen on Jul 30, 2018 5:14:44 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better?
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Jul 30, 2018 9:13:30 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? Okay full disclosure I only read the first book (along with the Hobbit) and was frustrated by all the padding and meandering in the first half. If you thought Qarth was bad, if you thought Potato is Awesomeing D-Squad was bad, then just wait till you try and get through Tom Bombadil.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick-Jedi-Valen on Jul 30, 2018 10:15:42 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? Okay full disclosure I only read the first book (along with the Hobbit) and was frustrated by all the padding and meandering in the first half. If you thought Qarth was bad, if you thought Potato is Awesomeing D-Squad was bad, then just wait till you try and get through Tom Bombadil. Yeah, as much as Tolkien was good at throwing in so much lore, it sometimes felt too much, but Tom Bombadil just takes the freaking cake. I never knew you could drag out what should be a small, but still unnecessary side track for as long as that.
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jul 30, 2018 10:19:40 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? It's difficult to say if the movies did it better. Given the source material, I think the films were executed almost the best they could have been. For the novels, there's obviously a lot more depth given about Middle-Earth and the lore is much stronger. Because the books are so old though, a lot of it doesn't translate onto film that well for today's audiences. Both are very good in their respective mediums, but I personally enjoy the films more I think, simply because the writing is so verbose that it's easy to get bogged down at various points. I know Tolkien liked his breakup of the story into 6 "books", but sometimes that made the plot feel a little weird when reading them, especially after having seen the movies. Like in ROTK, the Battle of Pelennor Fields occurs, but then you still have half the novel left before it finally ends.
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jul 30, 2018 10:21:39 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? Okay full disclosure I only read the first book (along with the Hobbit) and was frustrated by all the padding and meandering in the first half. If you thought Qarth was bad, if you thought Potato is Awesomeing D-Squad was bad, then just wait till you try and get through Tom Bombadil. It's been a few years since I read Fellowship, but I do remember thinking that Tom was dragged out way longer than he should've been. It's like why keep a character in here for x amount of pages when he could be used just as effectively with a fraction of the time dedicated to him?
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Jul 30, 2018 12:03:01 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? I plan on reading the books some time soon. But I didn't really like the Lord of the Rings movies.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick-Jedi-Valen on Jul 30, 2018 12:53:29 GMT -5
Has anyone read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and come out thinking the movies did it better? I plan on reading the books some time soon. But I didn't really like the Lord of the Rings movies. You didn't like the movies?! Seriously speaking though I'm surprised. I thought being a GOT fan you'd be all over those
|
|