What does your heart tell you?

Oooo, I'm in heaven :) It would have to be the films for me. Mainly because I've only read the Fellowship and half of The Two Towers! In all seriousness though, anything that can play with my emotions so much will always come out on top, and for all the good writing and imagery you can find in the books it's the films that completely draw me in. Yes, imagination plays in a huge part when reading and in truth, nothing can quite beat that, but on the screen you're treated to someone elses imagination, equally as impressive, topped off with wonderful acting, superb visuals and the grea-*test*-('") music that's ever been written for film. At the basic level, story in the books to story in the films, then the books would probably win, but with everytyhing else the films offer up, they can't be beaten for me.

This is a really difficult one, but I think I would have to go with the books. Partly just because I'm a bookworm at heart and I always will be. There's something so magical about opening a book and escaping into a different world, and when that world is as brilliantly and vividly detailed as Middle Earth I really don't think there's anything to beat it. The films are amazing though, like Middle Earth come to life in front of your eyes. Everything about them is superb, the cast are spot on and the music and visuals are stunningly beautiful. I think it's easier, in a way, to lose yourself in someone elses imagination. The ingredients are all there you just have to suspend reality and engage yourself in truly one of the grea-*test*-('") cinematic experiences ever created. The books are harder work, but for that I find them more rewarding. I got emotional in the films, but the books got me emotional and also made me think. I like Tom Bombadil by the way. I know I may actually be the only person in the world to feel this way but I can't help it. He's likeable. Although I will admit he does sing a lot. Reminds me of the slightly odd man I met when I first saw the films back to back at Southampton's Harbour Lights cinema, who waited until my Dad had gone to the loo before approaching me to discuss the relative merits of the films and the books. He had, apparently, tried putting all of Bombadil's songs to music. If you're interested, they don't go to music very well. Tolkein was evidently a poet, not a songwriter. :shock: Anyway, that was off-topic. I'm rather over excited at having somewhere to discuss LOTR to my hearts content. :D

Well, for me at least, it would have to be the films. I didn't read the book until after I saw The Fellowship Of The Ring and I think that the way the films locations and characters look and sound always influenced how I imagined the book when I read it. I can definitely see Aura's point where Tom Bombadil is concerned, I did kind of trudge my way through that part of the book and it does seem to go on longer than it needs to. Strangely enough, and it's not that I'm anti-tree or anything, the other part of the book that I found to be a bit hard going was the Treebeard section of The Two Towers. I can't remember whether it was just because I didn't get on with that section or I wanted to move onto the next part but there was just something I couldn't get on with it. Oh, btw, Gimli...is that for real? You've only read The Fellowship Of The Ring and half of The Two Towers? You really need to read The Return Of The King, that is one book that I had no problems with reading. It's a page turner and a half...although I think it helped that I hadn't seen the film when I read it (I managed to finish the book before The Two Towers was released).

Oh, btw, Gimli...is that for real? You've only read The Fellowship Of The Ring and half of The Two Towers? You really need to read The Return Of The King, that is one book that I had no problems with reading. It's a page turner and a half...although I think it helped that I hadn't seen the film when I read it (I managed to finish the book before The Two Towers was released). Unfortunately, yes. I've lost count of the number of times I've intended to read them, but I just never get round to it. I read The Fellowship about 5 years ago, after I'd seen The Two Towers, and I enjoyed it. When I came to reading The Two Towers I justs ended up stopping, not because I didn't like it, simply because I wasn't really in the mood. I will give them a go again (I always say that!). My sister is currently reading The Hobbit and that's got me thinking that I might read that again. I love that book, it's easily one of my favourites, and from what I have read of LOTR it doesn't compare. That might change when I read them all though.

I can definitely see Aura's point where Tom Bombadil is concerned, I did kind of trudge my way through that part of the book and it does seem to go on longer than it needs to. At least if you have to put up with Tom Bombadill, then you get the barrow-wights as compensation.

There's a bit of a nod to the Barrow-wights in Return of the King with Old Man Willow. The reason I think the films win out for me in the end is that you get a better perspective of timescale. In the books the journey doesn't start for something like 50 years after the departure of Bilbo so it seems to be incredibly slow.

I like Tom Bombadil by the way. I know I may actually be the only person in the world to feel this way but I can't help it. Well there is at least 2 of us K.B! :D Bombadil was (and remains) a curiosity to me as Tolkien never really gives you enough information to figure out exactly what he is. He is obviously a very powerful figure in Tolkiens world, but seems strangely uninterested in the comings and goings of the world around him. I've read the books maybe 7 or 8 times over the years, and really enjoy them, but overall i think that i prefer the films! Jackson managed to put onscreen almost exactly the images that i had in my mind when i was reading the books. Some parts of the books seem to drag slightly (especially the pages and pages of songs), but i can quite happily watch any of the films in its entirety without feeling that the film is dragging. In saying that, there are 2 parts of the books that i was disappointed didn't feature within the films: 1) Tom Bombadil - the only character that i don't have a real grasp of. 2) Sarumans death - The peaceful hobbits showing what they are capable of when pushed was one of my favourite parts of the books, but sadly did not make it into the films (though i can completely understand why). I also have a minor issue with the casting of Boromir (please don't lynch me :D ). Don't get me wrong, i like Sean Bean as an actor and thought his characterisation of the role was great, but I always pictured Boromir (physically) as being a huge, powerful, intimidating figure (the broadsword to Aragorns rapier if you will) whereas Beans Boromir was the same build as Aragorn.

The reason I think the films win out for me in the end is that you get a better perspective of timescale. In the books the journey doesn't start for something like 50 years after the departure of Bilbo so it seems to be incredibly slow. There does seem to be a greater sense of urgency in the films. Once Bilbo gives up the rings it's really juist a mtter of time. Still, have you ever tried to logically follow the timeline and geography in the films. It messes with your head. :?

2) Sarumans death - The peaceful hobbits showing what they are capable of when pushed was one of my favourite parts of the books, but sadly did not make it into the films (though i can completely understand why). I've never read how he dies in the books but his death in the films is one of those things that doesn't bug me, but I just know it could have been done better. Saruman's death in the book has actually bugged me more than the way it happens in the film. I've always felt that The Scouring Of The Shire seems tacked on to the end of the book. People complain that the ending of The Return Of The King movie goes on for too long but in comparison the book is another half an hour put on the end of that. I can understand why Tolkien wanted to address the subject matter in that chapter of the book but the whole pacing of it is wrong and, for some reason, it has always not sat well with me and I've always found it a little disappointing. You are winding down after the events of Mount Doom and the story is told of Aragorn becoming King and what happens to the other characters after Aragorn's coronation and then you get the Hobbits returning home to the Shire...and then all of a sudden the story starts to pick up again once they get back to the Shire only to slow down once again later with the journey to the Grey Havens. The death of Saruman is not perfect in the film, I agree, but it seems to fit better than it does in the book.

Saruman's death in the book has actually bugged me more than the way it happens in the film. I've always felt that The Scouring Of The Shire seems tacked on to the end of the book. People complain that the ending of The Return Of The King movie goes on for too long but in comparison the book is another half an hour put on the end of that. I can understand why Tolkien wanted to address the subject matter in that chapter of the book but the whole pacing of it is wrong and, for some reason, it has always not sat well with me and I've always found it a little disappointing. You are winding down after the events of Mount Doom and the story is told of Aragorn becoming King and what happens to the other characters after Aragorn's coronation and then you get the Hobbits returning home to the Shire...and then all of a sudden the story starts to pick up again once they get back to the Shire only to slow down once again later with the journey to the Grey Havens. The death of Saruman is not perfect in the film, I agree, but it seems to fit better than it does in the book. I actually don't totally agree (this is shocking I know, once more and the world will end... :shock: ) I do see what you mean about the Scouring of the Shire, certainly I wouldn't have wanted it included in the film because it interferes with the climax of Mount Doom. However, in a book, where you can put it down for a few hours after the Mount Doom sequence, and gather your thoughts, I think it works well. I think it's important to show the hobbits going home, and achieving what they achieved. I don't like that in the films they go back completely unrecognised. It's also important because it demonstrates something about Frodo and his sacrifice. When they get back he's the only one who doesn't get actively involved in the revolution against Saruman, and therefore, to the hobbits, he has achieved nothing. He's the one who gave up the most and I don't think that comes across as well in the films. We see that he is unhappy, and eventually leaves the Shire, but it's not fully explained that he doesn't feel he fits in anymore. What he went through changed him too irrevocably for him to pick up his old life, and whilst they do say that in the film, they don't explain why. Ultimately, I do understand what you mean when you say the pacing is wrong, but I like the Scouring of the Shire, I wouldn't get rid of it at all. There's also a certain poetic justice in Saruman's death which is missing from the films. I didn't like the way they handled Saruman dying in the films much at all, in the theatrical cuts it wasn't even mentioned. Munny - I'm so glad someone else in the world likes Bombadil. I think he's a brilliant character, and you're right, he's the only one who is never explained. Unless he's mentioned in any of the Unfinished Tales.

View Full Version: What does your heart tell you?