Originally Posted by shaddler:
“It's not possible for a fiction novel to contain no prose, otherwise it would be poetry or some other format. But I know what you mean - it's very pared down and direct. Fun fact: there are no semicolons in it. Actually I think there are none in all his books.”
There's no quotation marks either in The Road from what I can remember
I was being facetious when I said it was proseless but you got the idea anyway - very little in the way of description or imagery. It works though - one of my favourite books.
Quote:
“Despite stating that I think Fellowship is a good adaptation, I don't think the films are better than the books. Too much was left out, hardly any of the history of Middle Earth is mentioned, and some chapters were adapted very poorly imo (eg The Paths of the Dead, and the subsequent use of the undead army, the encounter with The Mouth of Sauron, the size of the Mumakil! etc. etc.). I also thought some of the characters were poorly adapted (eg Denethor, Faramir, Eowyn later on, Sauron himslef!).”
There's undoubtedly elements that the books do better than the films - as often with fantasy genre, exposition and history is one of the first things to get cut. I just watched Goblet of Fire last night which glossed over Priori Incantem in about five seconds, despite it being key to why Harry was able to escape from Voldemort!
However, on the whole, I find the LOTR films stronger. They cut a
lot of unnecessary and largely pointless scenes (namely singing), which The Hobbit films were worse of for actually including (namely singing)