oLahav said – Tue, 13 May 2008 18:28:57 -0000 ( Link )
In general, books are better than movies most often. They usually have more to them and there’s less cut out. Also, they leave you with a lot of room for the imagination, which is always fun. Movies just can’t do that.
This is especially true with the Lord of the Rings series. The first 2 films were decent, but the third one was just painful, the ending dragged on forever and ever. I also felt the movies didn’t quite fit with my impression of some of the characters… the elves were given some really dark characteristics in the movies (aside of Legolas, oddly enough), which just didn’t fit in with my picture, for one example.
One good aspect of the movies though was the humor, they’ve done that very well with the dwarf guy, he had some good lines.
What do you think?
- Actions
Post Comments
oLahav said – Mon, 26 May 2008 18:17:36 -0000 ( Flag Edit Link )
The original medium usually is the best, I have to agree. But not always… for example, taking the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, I found the original radio scripts a bit less funny than the novels. I think sometimes it takes a while and a few tries to get something right, you know what I mean?
I totally support your “views” theory… especially with the LOTR. The movie’s Gandalf was a lot freakier than I imagined, and the elves and dwarfs were just not right. On the other hand, their Golum was way better than I could ever have imagined.
You’re also right about games and movies… games and movies shouldn’t mix. There’s about 1 decent movie-based game (Spiderman 2) and 1 decent game-based movie (MK) out there, and that’s it.