Lord of the rings movies vs. books

[Izeroth]

  A big subject of debate among lord of the rings fans is whether the books or movies are best. Personally, I think that the books are better. What do you think about this?

[The Skarzs]

Books all the way. As cool as the movies are, they books are the things that really immerse you in Middle Earth, and contain so much more content than what is in the movies. (And every time our family watches a movie, we can't stop heckling it. ) Frodo was too wimpy, ARAGORN was too wimpy (the person who played Boromir would have been great actor for Aragorn), Marry and Pippin were too childish, etc.

[The Mask]

Yep the books are better. The movies are good, but the books are better.

[BlueRose]

Books! (However, I LOVE watching the extras on ALL the movies. The miniature work is sooo pretty!)

[Gonff the Mousethief]

I LOVE the books, but the movies seemed to have captured more action. Now the hobbit I prefer the book, but LOTR the movies by just a small hair.

[Izeroth]

 The reason I like the books more is because they have more detail than the Movies. Also, the movies leave out a pretty important scene, which is the capture of the shire by Saruman and his ruffians. The movies leave out Tom Bombadil too, but I think he's a fairly pointless character anyway  

[Delthion]

Books all the way. As cool as the movies are, they books are the things that really immerse you in Middle Earth, and contain so much more content than what is in the movies.

Completely and totally agree!

[The Skarzs]

The reason I like the books more is because they have more detail than the Movies. Also, the movies leave out a pretty important scene, which is the capture of the shire by Saruman and his ruffians. The movies leave out Tom Bombadil too, but I think he's a fairly pointless character anyway  

But the whole part in the forest with Tom Bombadil was so interesting.

[saxophone_cat]

The reason I like the books more is because they have more detail than the Movies. Also, the movies leave out a pretty important scene, which is the capture of the shire by Saruman and his ruffians. The movies leave out Tom Bombadil too, but I think he's a fairly pointless character anyway  

But the whole part in the forest with Tom Bombadil was so interesting.

But did anyone else find him really creepy? I never trusted him and I was happy when they left his house.

[BlueRose]

Tom Bombadil is freaking awesome! His nature is a bit weird, yeah, but he's a fun fellow (for bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow!)

(I made a rhyme. )

[Jetthebinturong]

He's also strongly implied to be a god, I personally think he's a manifestation of Orome or Eru

Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow
Bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow
Green was his girdle and his breeches all of leather
In his tall hat he wore a swan wing feather
He lived up under hill where the withywindle
Ran from a grassy well down into the dingle

[Delthion]

Definitely not Eru, but Bombadil being Orome would be extremely interesting...

[BlueRose]

Tolkien himself described Bombadil as an 'enigma'.

[Izeroth]

 C. S. Lewis (author of the Narnia series, as well as Tolkiens friend) actually thought Tom Bombadil should be removed because he seperated from the main plot. Tolkien insisted on having Bombadil in the books.

[BlueRose]

Good for Tolkien! Bombadil ROCKS.