That the LOTR books better than the movies
Peter Jackson made a lot of changes when he wrote the script. He changed the personality of Faramir as well as changing the story line. He cut out Tom Bombadil, changed the way the way things happened at Bree, the council of Elrond, before the Doors of Edoras, on the ways to Helm's Deep, at Helm's Deep, at the Paths of the Dead and at Aragon's coronation. He changed the time Aragon's sword was reforged too.
So did his changes ruin the plot or did it enhance it?
Do his changes make the movies better?
Is Tolkein's book trilogy the best regardless or is it now 'bereft of lordship and dignity?'
Books
Side Score: 3
|
 |
Movies
Side Score: 0
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't go so far to say as the movies ruined the books (like I could for around 98% of all movies based on books), but the books were better (as is the case, again, with probably 99.95% of move-book combinations). You can't fit that much depth and plot as in a single LOTR book into even 3.5 hours of movie. But the movies were great, and for having to fit all that depth and plot into 3.5 hours, Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. Applaud-able, even. Movie producers the world-over (okay, maybe just in California) could really take a lesson from Jackson. Side: Books
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
