HmmmI just seem to recall falling asleep a lot while trying to read LOTR. The version I had was an old one split into 6 books, and I don't remember anything really happening in about half of them, just a lot of walking about.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad book, I'm just saying I think in this case, the film is superior to the book. I do think that in 99.9% of cases though, books are better than the films.
(,
Thu 2 Apr 2009, 13:49,
archived)
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad book, I'm just saying I think in this case, the film is superior to the book. I do think that in 99.9% of cases though, books are better than the films.
I was too young when i tried to read it and only got half way through.So for me LOTR movie was better
but
films like IRobot take a huge steaming dump on the book. The robots books by Asimov are amazing. The film was simply retarded.
(,
Thu 2 Apr 2009, 13:58,
archived)
but
films like IRobot take a huge steaming dump on the book. The robots books by Asimov are amazing. The film was simply retarded.
Possibly I was also too youngI think I was about 13 when I read LOTR so possibly my attention span was not what is required for such a tome.
That being said, I still think the films are better than the book in that case.
Agree with you on iRobot though, definitely.
(,
Thu 2 Apr 2009, 14:03,
archived)
That being said, I still think the films are better than the book in that case.
Agree with you on iRobot though, definitely.
Ok. Tedious might not be a badword because they are seriously hard work i know. I'm just a bit precious ( pumn intended) about Tolkien because when i was given 'the hobbit' by my aunt aged around 7 I just know that it was a life changing moment and altered the way I perceive books now. This is why my boy is surrounded by books and not games consoles.
(
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Thu 2 Apr 2009, 14:00,
archived)