- Thread starter
- #61
Disagree about LTR. All the movies left in was the fighting/war. All the meandering "fat" is what made them such great novels. IMO.Lord of the Rings and Hannibal Lecter movies for the exact same reason - the movies trimmed out all the meandering, annoying, unnecessary fat the novels had, which made the plot feel a lot more streamlined and better-organized in general.
The Shining - I'm glad Kubrick cut out of all the sappy family melodrama crap of Stephen King's book and completely focused on the more cold-blooded, mysterious, chilling aspects of the story.
Hellraiser - I didn't really like Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart because it felt too manic and the story felt really cluttered and scrambled. But the movie's plot felt a lot more clear and focused.
Carrie - Brian DePalma's 1976 movie was so much more shocking and fiercely flamboyant and visceral than King's pedestrian first novel. It had the kitchen-crucifixion scene of that evil mother that the book didn't have.
Yes, Lord of the Rings is so much better than the movies, which at best are okay. I couldn't watch them a second time, but could read the books again.
Like I said, I've read all 3 Tolkein's LOTR novels and they were very, very creative. But I also thought his novels had a lot of distracting plot clutter in them I thought was unnecessary plot-wise (like the Tom Bombadil character, who served no plot purpose of any kind). Apparently Peter Jackson agreed with me because the movies' plots felt more "cleaned up" to me, that's all. Nobody in their right mind can deny that seeing an LOTR movie on the big screen was a visceral, mental rollercoaster ride experience.