Lord of the Rings Fan Club discussion
General
>
Did you read the book first before you watched the movie?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Mary Grace
(new)
Jul 25, 2016 11:02AM
The Two Towers was my favorite book, Lorien!! What did you think of Fellowship?
reply
|
flag
Tolkienite3791 wrote: "The Two Towers was my favorite book, Lorien!! What did you think of Fellowship?"I thought that it was well written and descriptive. I enjoyed reading it a lot and I'm also hoping that The Two Towers will be just as good.
I first read the Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion when I was about 13. That was about 30 years ago! I have read each of them about 6 times (I think) since then.Of course I like the books way more than the movies. For me, the best part of the movies was the scenery. I was disappointed in the plot alterations/additions, and was also bummed that they didn't utilize more dialog straight from the book.
But I think the movies have been great because they got so many people interested in the books, and the story in general. (Great story, no matter how you tell it).
Dylan wrote: "For me, the best part of the movies was the scenery. I was disappointed in the plot alterations/additions, and was also bummed that they didn't utilize more dialog straight from the book."I agree. The scenery was really well done. Especially Rivendell, Loth Lorien, the Shire, Rohan and even Minas Morgul, came alive on screen. Minas Tirith, not so much.
The city was too steep for one, and secondly there were nothing around it. What happened to the hamlets and farms of the Pelennor? When Gandalf and Pippin rode to Minas Tirith, those were still intact.
This is more how I pictured Minas Tirith: THE ROAD TO MINAS TIRITH BY GREG AND TIM HILDEBRANDT - google it...
Jingizu wrote: "This is more how I pictured Minas Tirith:..."Great picture. I like it. Yes, I think I remember now, the approach to Minas Tirith in the movie was a bit barren. It's supposed to be a nice place, right?
In general though, the scenery was great. Same with the Hobbit movies.
Yes, in the movie it was much too barren. The city was surrounded by hamlets and farms. Also, not utilising the Gondor citizens that lived on the coast that Aragorn gathered up (in the book), detracted from Gondor and made it look like only a small city-state with few citizens, when in truth it was a large country with many towns and people.But agreed that the scenery in general was great, also in The Hobbit. Loved Beor's home, and Laketown, Mirkwood and the Halls of Thranduil, the Lonely Mountain and Erebor. All excellently portrayed IMO.
I was very young when the movies were coming out, but I watched them anyway. I've started to read the books many many years later. Slowly maki my way through them because they're SO dense.
I read the hobbit when I was 10 then watched the films as they came out. I read lotr when I was 13 then saw the films, I'm 14 now and I've just finished the Silmarillion and starting on Unfinished Tales. I'm so glad I read the books first because they were amazing and I understood the story a lot more but the only bad thing about that was Haldir's death because he doesn't die in the book.
305writers_lane wrote: "Never saw the movies. The books are MY LIFE. I love them. I suppose that I should watch the movies, but I’m kind of worried that if the movies aren’t all that I hoped they would be, then my view of..."The books will always be amazing, and even if you hate the movies, it hopefully shouldn't take away from that. But it does help if you go into the experience expecting a visual interpretation of the story, rather than a direct representation. That way you won't be upset/disappointed by their omissions and changes (which really are inevitable). The movies are what brought me to the books, so even though they haven't aged so well for me, they did introduce a new generation to Tolkien, so that is something good.
I read the books, and, much later, saw the films as they came out. Then I got the Extended Edition.Since the films of the Harry Potter books differ from the books, I think of the two versions of the HP story as forming two different but equally canonical versions of it. Which is how I see the book and films of LOTR. They differ - e.g. in how Faramir is presented - but that is to be expected.
James wrote: "I read the books, and, much later, saw the films as they came out. Then I got the Extended Edition.Since the films of the Harry Potter books differ from the books, I think of the two versions of ..."
I don't know that I would consider the LOTR films (and most certainly not the Hobbit films) to be of equal canonical value to the books. Granted they have become a version of the story that many might recognize as the true story if they don't bother to read the books, but I suspect Tolkien would have had issues with some of their changes. Granted it is an interpretation of the story (and thats really the only way you can enjoy them IMHO), but it is a dumb-downed and simplified version that leaves a lot of story behind. Still worth watching though, if only to get to see the characters you love come to life.
Tara wrote: "James wrote: "I read the books, and, much later, saw the films as they came out. Then I got the Extended Edition.Since the films of the Harry Potter books differ from the books, I think of the tw..."
I think the films of The Hobbit are best forgotten.
Yes, I read the Hobbit first and then the Lord of the Rings and then I watched the movies.
I was bad. I read The Hobbit first. Then, I watched all the movies for Hobbit and Lotr. (Don’t hate me 🤪) I am currently reading Lotr & absolutely love them!
I was going to watch The Fellowship with my family on Christmas Eve and got to Elrond's council before we stopped because I didn't understand what was going on lol. But then about a week later I started reading the books and I'm so glad I read them before I watched the movies.
