Peter Jackson or J.R.R. Tolkien?

Among avid readers, claiming that a film adaptation is better than an original book can put me on dangerous ground. After all, people fall in love with books, spending time with them in a way that many don't with movies. A book is often read a bit at a time and can last someone weeks, whereas a movie is done in less than two hours, so it makes sense that readers can get very emotionally attached to books. Although I agree that many books hold more value and express more nuance than their adapted film counterparts, there is one key series that I believe was improved by its film adaptation: Lord of the Rings.

Although Tolkien clearly did a brilliant job with his trilogy, it is easier to keep track of the characters and the narrative in the films. Not only were the casting choices perfect - every single character is unique and interesting - but the plot flows well and holds my attention. The books can drag a bit with long descriptions that the movies capture more quickly with a gorgeous set. I also like that the movies make a fantastic story accessible to those who aren’t avid readers.

You may object that the books explore the themes of the story at a depth that the movies don't. In that case, you can watch the extended editions to see more of the characters whose stories aren't fully developed in the original films.

Now that I've made some people mad, I will admit that if it's between The Hobbit book and the Hobbit movie trilogy, the book wins. Hands down. 

Comments

  1. I appreciate your willingness to step out and make an unpopular opinion that Tolkien purists won't like especially. I'm not that person: I haven't read the entire trilogy and only watched the first film (and fell asleep for a bit of it). I'd love to hear what those Tolkien purists think!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Perfect Sentence

Hevel

The Tale of the Longer Recess