I don’t have anything against the books. I love all of them…but The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King films are better than the books. Sorry Mr. Tolkien…you’re still the best, though!
This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by BenTheWriter.
I get what you’re saying. Myself, I don’t really prefer one over the other. They’re different mediums and I feel that Tolkien’s form works better for the book and Jackson brought It all to life and kept things moving and to the point for the cinema. If we’re talking the theater cuts though, I say the books hands down all day—missing too many valuable components, especially in Return of the King, like the Mouth of Sauron.
I felt Narnia was better on screen. Those Books are meant for small children and writing cannot escape that. Though with such short source material they did not have to take out entire plot lines to fit into movie length, so I am mystified why some small but important scenes were left out or changed.
I actually disagreed with a lot of critics in regards to Prince Caspian. The book Prince Caspian is one of Lewis’s weakest entries in the Narnia series. It doesn’t take into account the psychological impact that the events of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe would have had on the children. It also doesn’t have a really clear allegorical take on Christian theology or metaphysics. I felt like the film tried to psychologically situate the children historically and personally, contextualize the ‘apostasy’ of Susan, and recognize the growth that the children may have experienced in the books. The film also gave the book a stronger message: ‘wait for God’s timing’ and ‘stand firm on what you have been told to do’. The film also performed an interesting slight of hand by removing the presence of a Bacchus/Dionysian character complete with mildly drunken revelry and turning the river god into something more Greek and less pagan. Some of this may feel like a loss, since these scene provided the book with a unique cultural flavor, but overall, I think the film felt more believable and solid than the book.
Excalibur is a 1981 American epic medieval fantasy film directed, produced, and co-written by John Boorman that retells the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table, based on the 15th-century Arthurian romance Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory. It stars Nigel Terry as Arthur, Nicol Williamson as Merlin, Nicholas Clay as Lancelot, Cherie Lunghi as Guenevere, Helen Mirren as Morgana, Liam Neeson as Gawain, Gabriel Byrne as Uther Pendragon, Corin Redgrave as Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, and Patrick Stewart as Leondegrance. The film is named after the legendary sword of King Arthur that features prominently in Arthurian literature. The film’s soundtrack features the music of Richard Wagner and Carl Orff, along with an original score by Trevor Jones.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The book is so slow your forget there’s a plot. (The next two in The Karla Trilogy, The Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley’s People, are much better, even in their quieter, more introspective moments.) The movie cuts most of the fat and the story is much more propulsive and tenser, with a sense of urgency the book doesn’t have because it keeps slowing down for these shaggy dog reminiscences (which are handled much better in Smiley’s People). It helps that the performances are all great; though he’s not a physical match for the literary version of the character, I always see Gary Oldman as George Smiley when I read the books.
The same goes for The IPCRESS File, perhaps even more so. Great movie, dull as dishwater book.