Was the movie version of The Lord of the Rings better than the books?

Question

I happen to think so. And no, I did not see the movies first and then read the books. Pete Jackson and Co. did a fine job of paring the books down to the essentials. Most of the changes they made improved the story, except for giving Faramir brown hair when he was supposed to have black hair.

Answer 1

I still love and read the book and I also own and love the extended DVD version of Jackson's film - which is far more satisfying than the theatrical version. The film is Jackson's interpretation of the book. It is not mine. When I go back to the book I see the characters as I have always imagined them not as Jackson portrayed them. The book contains so much more than the film.

Answer 2

There is really no objective way to answer this question.

In order to move any story from page to screen, certain changes must be made - for length; for sense; because sometimes something that works well in fiction can't be reproduced on screen; etc.

I would say that the film and the book are fairly different works. Tolkein's books made directly into film would seem like an endless series of hobbits sitting down to meals - quite charming in the text, but perhaps not so thrilling on screen. I am glad they didn't take the time to show us every time Merry needed a snack.

Anyhow, whether the book or the movie is "better" is strictly a matter of personal preference.

Answer 3

there will be really no objective thanks to respond to this question. with the intention to bypass any tale from web page to video demonstrate, precise differences should be made - for length; for adventure; because usually regardless of that works nicely in fiction at the instantaneous are not in a position to be reproduced on video demonstrate; etc. i'd say that the movie and the booklet are truly particular works. Tolkein's books made on the instantaneous into movie would appear as if an never-ending sequence of hobbits sitting all the way all the way down to elements - really desirable interior the textual content cloth, yet perchance now not so exciting on demonstrate. i'm completely satisfied they did not make an effort to expose us each and each and every time Merry needed a snack. anyhow, even if the coaching guide or the movie is "larger" is strictly a be counted of human being option.

Answer 4

The movies better than the books?? Lets not get nuts here. The book is always better than the movie. Especially in this case. I mean the movies are great dont get me wrong, but the books are far greater. I have read the story 3 times in my life. I was 14 the first time and read them again right before the first came out. Then again after "Return of the King." The books go into so much more detail and do not leave anything out like the movies. Look at Treebeard and the Ents. In the book it went into so much detail on how he rescued Merry and Pippin and how he took them back to his home. Then he gave them the "magic of youth" elixir and so on. The movie left all this out. The segments on the Ents were so brief it made me mad really. In the book it went into so much more detail on Strider and the journey of him getting them back to safety. In the movie it was just like this is Strider and then bam! He is Aragorn Heir of Gondor. Well that is my 2cents. Everyone has their opinion. I just think the books are a more wonderful experience.

Answer 5

I, unfortunately, just started reading the books and I've already seen the movies. But, from what i've read so far i think the movie does pretty much stick to the basics from the book. They did leave out some things that i thought could have made the movies better though.

Answer 6

no