rigger wrote:Another Northern Soul wrote:LOTR films better than the book?????
Blasphemy! (Sort of)
The Exorcist, the first two Omen films, MASH, Shawshank Redemption (I'm cheating with that TBF), any good Shakespeare adaptation
No, I think they both are superb.
I did say hold up as well as in the original post.
I stand by the "editing" done by Jackson for the movies, though - they were better paced than the books, I thought.
I really love the middle one where we spend time with Gollum as the party splits and everyone makes their separate journeys across Middle Earth.
I love the LOTR films, quite like The Hobbit ones as well, they're all astonishingly good.
I suggest that in a way comparing books with films is like comparing grapes with wine. That's a silly analogy I know. I remember reading the LOTR trilogy for the first time when I was out of work in my teens and felt even then that 'there's too much bleedin' singing' in the books
Just remembered one film I think is miles better than the book and that's the original Frankenstein. Whale's 'take' on the book is so different to the novel - it's hardly even a novel IMO - while Dracula the novel is miles better than any of the million films, IMHO.
