The Two Towers

I was in eighth grade when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out. Having just completed The Hobbit and being eager to prepare myself for the much-hyped trilogy, I began to read the books for the first time. I didn't even get through the first book until after I had already seen the movie. I was so slow getting to the next one (this one) that I had already seen The Two Towers before I began to read it. And I didn't get very far (four chapters, to be precise) before putting the book down and saying, "fuck it; the movies have been so much better than the books." And that much was true. As tried and tested as the "the book is always better" rule is, it doesn't hold true with The Lord of the Rings. If you think the movie trilogy was long and boring, please do yourself a favor and stay away from the books. If you've seen the film version of The Two Towers, for example, you'll recall that the climactic part of the movie is the defense of Helm's Deep, the last stronghold for the people of Rohan. There's a slow and steady build-up and then the battle itself takes place over thirty minutes or so of screen time. In the book, on the other hand, the following things are confined to one fifteen-page chapter: the journey to Helm's Deep, the preparations for a siege, the siege itself, and the victory. And that chapter is Chapter 7. Of 21. Compare this to the whole chapter Tolkien devotes to the journey from Helm's Deep to Isengard (not even shown on screen) or the entire one Frodo, Sam, and Gollum spend cooking rabbits. Tolkien may have written some classics, but he sure didn't punctuate or pace them nearly as well as Peter Jackson. Remarkably, the book I just finished (after a six or seven year hiatus) was very close to Jackson's film version. The main difference was the one I've already mentioned; pacing and chronological order are mixed up a bit on screen, and it's for the better. But the second-biggest change Jackson made was a watering down of many of the principal characters. In the films, Gimli the dwarf is heroic, sure, but he serves primarily as comic relief, especially when jokes are made at the expense of his pride and small stature. In the books, however, he's a very mutli-dimensional character with a quick wit and much more outward respect for his friends and allies. A similar case applies for Legolas; Orlando Bloom's version is a valiant bad-ass, but Tolkien's actually has a personality. He's jovial and sarcastic, and he too is much more openly concerned with the safety of his friends. One memorable comedic moment in the films occurs when Gimli and Legolas get into a kill count contest during the Helm's Deep siege. I was surprised when the same contest unfolded in this book, but I was even more surprised when it ended with Legolas conceding victory (by one kill) to Gimli, but professing that his happiness for Gimli's survival outweighs any resentment he feels from coming in second. In general, it seems like Jackson's characters take themselves far too seriously whereas Tolkien's are unabashedly human. In the movies, Faramir is nearly consumed by greed and almost takes the ring from Frodo when he holds him captive. In the books, he's a much nobler and stronger character, promising that even if he found the ring on the ground he'd never even think of picking it up. What the movie had depicted as Frodo's main second movie conflict turned out to be nothing more than a friendly conversation in the book. So really, even though they're very similar, the books and the movies each have their share of advantages and disadvantages. For now, I'll take the less dimensional characters the movies offer in exchange for the much more poorly structured and paced books. I still haven't read The Return of the King, though; I'll see if the same trends continue with that one.