kupomogli on 24 September 2013
| irstupid said: anyone who says they liked the books better in LOTR versus the movie has not read the books. Now i'm not saying the movie is better than the books, just saying its more enjoyable. The books are for like the super fans of the series that want to learn every aspect of the world and know each characters geneoligy and howto speak elvin and ect. The books are like reading an actualy real life history book. They were not read for entertainment purposes. It's a chore reading them. The Hobbit is the opposite. It is a delight reading the Hobbit. Maybe that is why people love the LOTR movies and hate the Hobbit. Like most all book/movie adaptations, the books are always better. BUT in the case of the LOTR, while it may be better, it is such a huge chore that its a relief to be able to watch it and cut out the history lesson. Thus we look past its flaws or omisions from the books and can just enjoy the story. meanwhile we already could enjoy the Hobbit and thus we start nitpicking every little thing about the movie. |
The books are for the super fans of the series? You mean the same books that came out 50 years before the movies did? The quality of and how highly rated the books were is the reason the movies were made in the first place. The movies cut out a massive amount of content that was included within the books. Instead it was nothing more than walking and action scenes that made up the movies.
The Lord of the Rings movie adaptations are like Final Fantasy 13. Nothing but walking from point a to b.
