Which do you like better: the books or the movies?

[abake]

I've just starting reading The Lord of the Rings again after some 15 years and I'm surprised at how different the books are from the movies. I've only got to Book Two, but there are very important differences in character and tone.

So I was wondering how many actually have read the books and which they actually prefer.

I'm undecided yet.
I still find Tolkien's prose pretty dull, but I do like the hobbits more in the books. Not so stupid as portrayed in the movie.
Aragorn seems a bit flat up to now though.
But the movies did have a much greater sense of urgency and doom.

So I'm holding off final judgement until after reading the whole thing.

 

[carbo-fation]

I like the books a lot more, but the movies are in a category of greatness on their own.

 

[superdoug]

i've been in love with the books since i was about 5 and i had read them a lot before the movies came out so when i went in to see them i went in with the notion of these are jackson's interperations of the story the lord of the rings so i sat back and enjoyed the movies without critizing every difference or variation. i went in a saw them as a stand alone piece and i thought they were fantastic but yes without any doubt the books are better.

 

[hoodonit00]

The books were great, but I loved the movies. The movies allowed you to see what you could only imagine in the books. I think even people with the best imaginations would find it hard to picture some of the epic battle scenes depicted in the movies. JMHO

 

[CAhobbit]

Two different beasts (so to speak). I love both of them in their respective mediums.

 

[customizerwannabe]

Both are great in their own rights. The trilogy in movie form makes up 3 of the greatest movies ever filmed IMO. The books are different but in a lot of ways even more magical. Couldn't live without either format.

 

[Gondor59]

Both are great in their own rights. The trilogy in movie form makes up 3 of the greatest movies ever filmed IMO. The books are different but in a lot of ways even more magical. Couldn't live without either format.

The movies were pretty good, done as well as humanly possible....but they are not nearly as great and powerful as the books.

 

[Kratos]

There are factors about both the Books and the Movies I like so I picked both

 

[pixletwin]

Both are gods. I love watching the movies but I also feel more immersed in the lore if I read the books. So I voted both.

 

[Darth Rage]

They both have their merits and drawbacks.

 

[Mesa]

I can't find time to read th books, so I finally broke down and got used copies of the unabridged Audio books. It's like reading the books, but less work, and great for the upcoming 6 hour road trip to SDCC tonight.

 

[Nazgurl]

Books hands down for me. They've been my obsession since 1971. I still read them once every couple of years (and am actually doing so now).

Don't get me wrong - I love the movies, but I still have issues with some of the "liberties" Jackson took with the story. (and what's funny is that as I am re-reading the books, every time Pippin speaks I can hear Billy Boyd's voice saying the written words - doesn't happen with any other character).

But the LOTR films are my favorite films, just as the book is my favorite book.

 

[Fubeca]

Books were too fluffy! Too much about food, songs and smoking the good toby!

 

[Red]

Love both the books and movies,enough said.

 

[abake]

I'm at to Elrond's council now.
Hmmm...

One thing strikes me, and it is that Jackson and his team have made most (if not all) the characters much more interesting and "human".
Aragorn sounds like a ^^^^^ who's too full of himself in the book (up to now), Gandalf, too. Just short of insufferable.
All that crap about "such a thing has never happened before, that Gandalf broke tryst and did not come when he promised" so I really need to explain this in a very long winded way is just so... aaaarggghhhhh! I would've kicked him in the nuts for that phrase alone!
And Aragorn getting all pissy because Boromir explains that they've been having to hold off Mordor's armies with no help, and feels he has to say that he too has been doing a lot of work up in the north... gah.

The hobbits are much more interesting in the bok though, not so silly and lame-brained.

Boromir is still cool, too.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the book, but I can see all the things that bugged me about it the first time around.

I'm going to vote both, as each medium has its high and lows.

 

[shocktrooper_au]

The books for sure!

 

[King Darkness]

Words suck

 

[KitFisto]

Movie fan here. whil I really like the books I think they tend to be a bit more drawn out then they need to be at times.

 

[Batty]

Words suck

Reading is hard.

I love both the books and the movies. I've read the books countless times since the 70s, and I've always had my own vision of how things should be. How everyone looks and sounds. It's more personal to me that way. It would probably be different if I had seen the movies first.

 

[The Craw]

i read the books as a teenager, and i reread each one right before its movie came out. they were good but i just cant find time to sit down and read a book anymore. if i try im asleep in 5 minutes. i feel the movies paid great tribute to the books. i was kinda skeptical before i saw FOTR cuz i thought there was no way to capture all of that on film without omitting necessary information. fortunately i was wrong. the movies kicked ass and then PJ went ahead and released the extended DVDs which were even truer to the books. gotta give him props for that. those dvd sets are some of the best sets ever made. plus they contain the only special features i was able to sit through and stay interested. i vote movies.