Did ROTS the movie live up to ROTS the book?

I keeo going back and fourth on this. At first i thought no, but now i'm think it's not that simple. The movie was sweet. The visual effects, and the score were awesome. I think Ewan did an amazing job as obi-wan, and i feel hayden did a better job with anakin. I feel the book was better ploted and had soem cooler lines. I also liked some of the scenes in the book that weren't in the movie, but i also really like the wookiee's fighting, which wasn't in the book.
Overall i'm going to say that the are equaly good, but that the book does a better job with the story then the movie does.

 

upping to see if i can get some replies.

 

Don't.

 

It was better than the book. 'Nuff said.

 

All 3 prequel novel were greater than the films, if you have a vivid imagination & because no one is slashing/editing/cutting up the books.

What is Lucas's problem, why doesn't he make 3-4 hour movies. It would have been great to have all the Rebellion & Outbound Flight scenes in RotS, it only would have made the movie better!

 

Book was better.

 

The first part of both the movie and the book, space battle and all, are more or less equal for me. The Dooku duel is longer and more involved in the novel, but it doesn't showcase what happens to Obi-Wan and Anakin like the movie does.

The middle part, where the movie is weakest, I feel is the best part of the book. Despite Lucas' best attempts, Anakin's reasons for turning to the dark side are better explained in the novel. Especially the scene where in the book, Anakin is barely able to stand when he goes to tell Mace of Palpatine's revelation. That same scene in the movie though, is far less dramatic.

However, the latter third of the movie, from Mace's duel to the end, the movie manages to outdo the novel in every way imaginable.

 

One of the disadvantages of reading the book first is that you always want to compare the two sources. Like, for example, the Dooku duel. In the book it is set up well and has a story behind it (how Anakin and Obi-Wan are playing Dooku at first), but in the movie it is "Dooku is here! *fight* *Dooku dead*. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, it's just different. The book adds depth that a movie simply cannot have due to time constraints, but the movie adds emotion and drama visually that a book cannot. The best way to use the book is as a report on the movie, and not worry so much about how something is not told exactly as it is in the book on screen. I got a lot of enjoyment out of both, and that's all that counts, IMO.

 

I've seen the movie three times and I just finished the book today...and I think the book is quite a bit better than the film (which I love).

I wish the movie featured all of the cool stuff from the book.

 

Yeah i really like the insight that stover gives in the book.

 

i've seen the film trwice and then read the book.

I feel that the film is better, the only thing i wish had been ai the film that was in the book was Needa offering Grevious the option of a surrender, a nice link to the old trilogy i thought.

 

However, the latter third of the movie, from Mace's duel to the end, the movie manages to outdo the novel in every way imaginable.

Agreed.

Overall, I'd have to say that I enjoyed the movie more, though that may just be because I saw it before I read the book and was taken completely by surprise by some things.

Both the book and the movie have their own particular strong and weak points. The book has a stronger beginning, I felt, with Dooku's reflections and more of Grievous being awesome instead of a coughing hunchback. Dooku's death, Mace's death, the battle with Palpatine, the whole "age of heroes" thing, and "this is what it's like to be Anakin Skywalker forever" were all very well done.

I was very disappointed with the novel's portrayal of Order 66, the Yoda/Palpatine fight, and the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight. Order 66 was nothing, it got about a page; I was almost crying during its execution in the movie. The Yoda/Palpatine battle, while great for its "avatar of the light vs. embodiment of the darkness" parts, was also very brief. The duel on Mustafar wasn't poorly written; it just read like a standard novelization of a movie, which Stover's book had largely avoided doing up to that point.

In large, they're both awesome, and complement each other's flaws nicely.

 

While I'm a huge Stover fanboy, I greatly prefered the movie.

 

The Dooku fight was a lot better in the book and unfortunately I was dissapointed by it in the movie but the first of the fights were better...Also all the little jokes in the book added humour that should have been in the movie..

I wish you had said that before I gave back his lightsaber...
Vader things were just evil I love that when he killed sepatists leadrs...

Movie was visualy amazing and sounds were great...As was R2D2...It would be nice if some of that was in deleted scenes

 

I liked the book, I love Stover. The movie blew me away, and the acting was superb, IMO.

That's why though I like the books, the actors that embody the characters make such different choices than I can imagine in my head.

It's the reason some people like the EU characters better: they see what they want to see, and others see something else entirely.

But the movies are as their creator would have them, and they are what we see. I like the movies better for this reason.

A tenth hand accounting of these PT characters (who are so alive and so vivid), based on an EU authors preferences and predjudices, and interpreted through their OC's is not what I am so interested in. It doesn't ring true to me. It's a watered down world.

 

The book had more depth, but the film was cool!! The book had a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen expanded upon, most notably the setting up of the Rebellion which IMO was lost in the film.