Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » Are you a bookie?
1234
Author Topic:
Lord_Sauron
Council Member
Posts: 7389
Send Message
Post
on: July 28, 2013 03:46
I loved the movies and thought that Peter Jackson and all the actors did an excellent job in making Middle Earth come alive. However I love the books more and I always will not just because there is so much more characters and events that take place but because when I read them I imagine that I am in Middle Earth watching the characters go on their journey (I really can't explain it )
I read the books before I saw the movie
61% (9)
I read the books after I saw the movie, and I prefer the books
30% (4)
I read the books after I saw the movie, and I prefer the movie
6% (9)
I never read the books
2% (3)
Bartimaeus
Council Member
Posts: 65
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: July 30, 2013 09:47
Oh, the books are the best I like the movies, but they aren't as elegant. And there's so much more scope for imagination in the books.
Cillendor
Council Member
Posts: 424
Send Message
Post
on: July 30, 2013 04:41
With LOTR, I like the books and movies equally and think the movies would suck as books and the books would suck as movies if either were directly imported into the other format. Both versions maximize their potential in the format used.

For The Hobbit, though, I like the movie better than the book regardless. I read it as a kid, but I didn't like it that much, and now as an adult it's my least favorite Tolkien book. I wouldn't read it at all if it weren't part of his Middle-earth stories. I appreciate it for what it is, but I think the movie does everything so much better. Granted, the fighting is pretty unrealistic, and I do have some other complaints about the AUJ, but as for the story content, I like it so much more than the book.
Lindarielwen
Council Member
Posts: 24157
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: July 31, 2013 10:00
Lord_Sauron, your post has prompted me to read the trilogy again.

I have not read them in about 9 years so it is time to read them over and see how the movies differ. I know there are big differences between them and I look forward to reading my way through Middle-earth at least one more time! Or two or three or.....I never get tired of reading...
My destiny is riding again, rolling in the rain, unwinding in the wind. My destiny is fighting again, secretly unwinding..what it was I was supposed to say...to say to you today.
findemaxam48
Council Member
Posts: 9188
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: July 31, 2013 11:50
I read the books first, when I was in about fourth grade. I didnt watch the movies until I was in seventh grade. Now, as a high school sophomore, I love both the books and the movies, but i have a huge appritiation for the books just because the way they were so carefully crafted. Just like Lindarielwen, I havent read the books in ages, so I think I may need to grab my copy of The Fellowship and go at it
We were one in the same, running like moths to the flame. You'd hang on every word I'd say, but now they only ricochet.
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: August 01, 2013 04:53
When you read the book again it's worth holding in mind a particular aspect of the story to understand it better. It's so dense and complex that this approach is worth doing. I did it from the point of view of the Ring and....wow! I'm going through it again now but more of that later.
Hangman Helper program
findemaxam48
Council Member
Posts: 9188
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: August 02, 2013 03:23
How true, how true!
We were one in the same, running like moths to the flame. You'd hang on every word I'd say, but now they only ricochet.
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: December 22, 2013 06:55
Bookie, absolutely no question. Extremely so with the LotR. But I suspect that, even granting PJ much more leeway to fill in details of TH, I am probably going to go into Virtual Werewolf mode due to some of his expansions, let alone “improvements” that contradict the story line.

That was where I felt the LotR film was at its weakest, when they thought they were “improving” on The Master. I read something in a film-discussions site that they did not consider Faramir in the book to be convincing and decided to “correct” this “defective” part. To quote C.S. Lewis (on another topic):

ARROGANT WHELPS!

It was the biggest disaster of the entire movie.
Image
Hanasian
Council Member
Posts: 995
Send Message
Post
on: December 23, 2013 06:36
Bookie, and don't really like the movies. Have I watched them? Yes, i think I saw Fellowship a few times in the theatre. Do I own them? Yes, have all three extended editions. Yet with the exception of a few aspects portrayed in the LotR movies, I really don't think they are all that good. And every time I watch them, they seem worse. So my DVDs are collecting dust.

Having read the books and appendices repeatedly starting about 25 years before the first movie came out, I have my own "movie" of the tale I read firmly implanted in my head. It's my interpretation of the tale, not PJs.
Eighth King of Arthedain - It was in battle that I come into this Kingship, and it will be in Battle when I leave it. There is no peace for the Realm of Arnor. Read the last stand of Arthedain in the Darkest of Days.
Mareth_Ravenlock
Council Member
Posts: 6138
Send Message
Post
on: January 07, 2014 02:34
Probably a bookie. But I haven't even finished the books yet...I do love the movies very much.
~Llama Warrior of Nessa~ Sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carrol
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: January 07, 2014 03:49
Oh c'mon Mareth! You were halfway through TTT ages ago. You're missing loads of the good bits which aren't even in the films. Tom Bombadil was good wasn't he? Get it finished. I'll give you until March. No excuses, otherwise I'm gonna come round there and read it to you.
Hangman Helper program
LadyElarinya
Council Member
Posts: 115
Send Message
Post
on: January 08, 2014 10:42
Books are always better than movies simply because movies are limited. Even Peter Jackson's movies wich are three hours long can't do much. They have to imput all the ideias, messages, morals of the books into this short period of time. You can't do it all and you end up having to summarize things by changing the story a bit.

I prefer the books, they are much more detailed, but the movies helps a lot giving us a visual for things in the book. I can read the trilogy imagining Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn perfectly (and it's not disappointing, hehe).

And if you can't read the books you can always get the audiobooks. Maybe that way Mareth_Ravenlock will finish it, tarcolan. Hehe.
"O môr henion i dhû: Ely siriar, êl síla. Ai! Aníron Undómiel. Tiro! Êl eria e môr. I 'lîr en êl luitha 'úren. Ai! Aníron…"
Mareth_Ravenlock
Council Member
Posts: 6138
Send Message
Post
on: January 08, 2014 02:54
I know, I know...I really will finish them! I promise! I think Frodo and Sam are visiting Shelob right now. My problem is I'm also reading Ranger's Apprentice book 10, and I'm reading aloud another book to my younger brothers...*glances at Tarc, but he remains firm* Oh alright! I'll start reading it again...soon. *smiles innocently at Tarc*

I would like to get the audio books at some point, Elarinya (by the way, you needn't put the "Ravenlock" on the "Mareth". I'm just plain old Mareth. Or Mar, to some of my fellow Realmers. ) but I don't really know where a good place to get them would be.
~Llama Warrior of Nessa~ Sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carrol
LadyElarinya
Council Member
Posts: 115
Send Message
Post
on: January 08, 2014 04:31
You could get it from youtube, if you don't mind listening to it on the computer. You could also probably buy it from amazon. Anyway, it's not that difficult to find. ^^
"O môr henion i dhû: Ely siriar, êl síla. Ai! Aníron Undómiel. Tiro! Êl eria e môr. I 'lîr en êl luitha 'úren. Ai! Aníron…"
Nevaratoiel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Post
on: January 13, 2014 02:52
I voted: "I read the books after I saw the movie, and I prefer the movie"

Having voted that, I really did try to read the (Lord of the Rings) books before the films. My problem that it's such tenacious and long wired material it was impossible for me to get through. After having seen the films I tried again, and even though I was older, it was still a tough read for me. Everything is over-described. If you need a page to describe one scene setting, you have lost me. So, I prefer the films much over the books.

The Hobbit book was just about the complete opposite. This felt a bit like a children's book to me. It just fell short on many things. Thus I prefer the films too.

I do like reading, but Tolkien's writing just does not appeal to me. It seems like there is no middle ground. What feeling and empathy I missed in the books the films filled it up. It just gave me visual aid to be able to read the books. I don't mind the changes they made in Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I just love them with a passion.
~Nev~
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: January 13, 2014 04:10
Over-described?! Oh dear me I feel faint. One of the joys of the book is the power of his descriptive writing to transport us into that world. I suppose if you saw the film first you already have an image of it. The book is supposed to be drawn from ancient myths and legends, so it has to be read with that in mind. It's not like a modern novel.

Mareth, there is an audiobook reading of LOTR available by Robert Inglis. I've no idea who he is or how good he is at reading. So much depends on how it's read. There are also a couple of dramatisations which you could buy through the store here. The BBC one is pretty good and it has Ian Holm as Frodo. It can get a bit too theatrical and Shakespearian, if you know what I mean, but it's pretty close to the text. Book, play, film - they're all just different tellings of the myth for me.
Hangman Helper program
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: January 14, 2014 02:59
Tom Shippey, in “Author of the Century” (2000), mentions a description of literary modes by Northrop Frye in “An Anatomy of Criticism” (1957). Frye postulates five very general literary modes, defined only by the nature of their characters, in kind and / or degree, relative to other characters and the environment:

1) Myth: characters are superior in kind to others and their environment
2) Romance: characters are superior in degree to others and their environment
3) High Mimesis: characters are superior in degree to others, but not their environment
4) Low Mimesis: characters are now also not superior in degree to others
5) Irony: characters are below us, antiheroes, treated comically

Perhaps the categories are best exemplified by characters in LotR:

1) Gandalf, Tom Bombadil, Saruman, Sauron
2) Aragorn, Elves, Dwarves
3) Boromir, Faramir, Éomer (level of the epic)
4) Some Hobbits and humans (level of the classical novel)
5) Other Hobbits and humans (level of some modern novels)

Now to many people (including critics) these are neat drawers in which to drop books whole, and besides that levels 4 and 5 dominate heavily.

And that’s the problem: LotR has parts that fit all five categories, refusing to stay put in one drawer. Also, unfashionably daring at levels 3, 2 and 1. Infuriating to many critics and – to use an oh-so-fitting phrase – the “severely practical” (who will have NO use for it).

This could be a problem for newcomers to LotR. How many times have I heard that people never got past i.e. Bombadil before giving up (his songs apparently being especially infuriating). I was also told, before MY first reading (a German translation in 1983) that I should persevere beyond (I forget what), “because it is worth it.”

Last note: when I finally read the original in 1984 or 1985 (my rather tattered paperback by now), I did something extremely unusual for me: having started on a Friday evening, I got up at 6 AM (!!!) Saturday to continue reading, which I did continuously (with a few unavoidable interruptions) until 1 AM on Sunday. That has never happened before or since.
Image
LadyElarinya
Council Member
Posts: 115
Send Message
Post
on: January 14, 2014 05:38
Hehe, you practically just had to say: Tolkien was a genius. The end!

When I started reading I thought the descriptions were pretty heavy as well, but mainly because I didn't even know some of the words in it. But still, the book was wonderful enough to keep me reading and then continue on to The Hobbit, Simarillion and Unfinished Tales. And one important thing to note [to me] was that up until then I had barely read books in my whole life. Think I could count in one hand the number of books, and they had been children's books. Tolkien *made* me read. That's how good he is [in my opinion].

So yeah, it can be tough to get past the long descriptions at first, but the whole experience is just worth it. And even though I had [or even have] no experience criticising literary works, I knew I was reading a masterpiece. An absolute classic.
"O môr henion i dhû: Ely siriar, êl síla. Ai! Aníron Undómiel. Tiro! Êl eria e môr. I 'lîr en êl luitha 'úren. Ai! Aníron…"
Nevaratoiel
Council Member
Posts: 85
Send Message
Post
on: January 18, 2014 05:46
tarcolan said:Over-described?! Oh dear me I feel faint. One of the joys of the book is the power of his descriptive writing to transport us into that world. I suppose if you saw the film first you already have an image of it. The book is supposed to be drawn from ancient myths and legends, so it has to be read with that in mind. It's not like a modern novel.
*shrugs*

Each to his/her own. I voiced my opinion, you voiced yours. We don't agree. 'Nuff said.
~Nev~
Silmelirie
Council Member
Posts: 148
Send Message
Post
on: January 23, 2014 10:07
I'm definitely a bookie, but the movies are pretty good. I tend to see them as seperate entities. But, still, I prefer the books. Always do. Yes, they are a bit long and sometimes difficult to read (for the impatient mind like mine ), but that makes them special.
~*You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream.*~
ImageImageImage
Gildor Inglorion
Council Member
Posts: 11
Send Message
Post
on: February 19, 2014 04:09
I love both a ton, but the books will always beat the movies for me (I'm a bookie ). the only negative aspect of the books is the slowish beginning in the Shire, but other than that, they are perfect (in my humble opinion). PJ did a good job, but he made a few mistakes (*cough* Tom Bombadil *cough*). Even so, making LoTR into a movie is extremely hard, so I have a lot of respect for PJ for what he did.
Mareth_Ravenlock
Council Member
Posts: 6138
Send Message
Post
on: February 27, 2014 10:44
I agree with you, Gildor. I loved Tom, personally.

Thanks, Elarinya and Tarc. I'll have to look into those.
~Llama Warrior of Nessa~ Sometimes, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. - Lewis Carrol
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: February 27, 2014 12:12
Yes, Tom Bombadil is a wonderful character - but for my feeling he is more of a The Hobbit character that a LotR character. You mustn't forget that JRRT started out writing a sequel to The Hobbit as requested by his publisher. Up to Bree and Strider, at the very latest up to the Council of Elrond (in the book! ), he was still doing so. And TB had a life of his own in poems, predating the LotR, perhaps some even TH. At this point JRRT was still not quite sure where the story was going and so included TB, who was to become more and more anachronistic as the story changed its tone. JRRT certainly did quite a bit of rewriting of earlier passages once Sam said "Well, I'm back." (Which is the ending of RotK the film too - PJ would have had a death wish to let the movies end otherwise). But I count myself among the many for whom one appeal of LotR is this gradual shift in tone - to a degree accidental but one of the unsurpassed strengths of the book.
But TB (and the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs) would have taken up more time than even an EE has to spare, especially because the darkening of mood occurs (probably has to) in FotR earlier. Ralph Bakshi in his 1978 LotR half-cartoon also skipped TB, so here PJ is not alone in the movie industry in taking streamlining decisions.
If you REALLY want to do LotR the book justice in moving pictures, what do you need?
A TV midi-series (I don't know where miniseries has its upper limit) of 26 weeks with an hour each week. Just think of the Council of Elrond in the book and how long all that conversation would take to film.
And 26 hours may be too short, as my longest stretch of reading LotR was 19 hours, and that carried me through something between 1/2 and 2/3 of the book. So a full-year series (actually, it would of course really be a serial - the one I would watch!) is closer to the probable time scope.

[Edited on 02/27/2014 by Gandolorin]
Image
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: February 27, 2014 01:18
Gandolorin said:
so included TB, who was to become more and more anachronistic as the story changed its tone
Yes, and it took a chunk of the council chapter to get rid of him. Even Tolkien had a hard time explaining Tom's presence and in the end his description of what Tom represents sounds close to his description of Elves (Letter 144).
Ralph Bakshi in his 1978 LotR half-cartoon also skipped TB
So did Brian Sibley in the radio series.
Hangman Helper program
findemaxam48
Council Member
Posts: 9188
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: March 01, 2014 12:52
My sister has recently begun to read FotR because she wants to see the movies. I refuse to let her until she reads the trilogy, at least.
We were one in the same, running like moths to the flame. You'd hang on every word I'd say, but now they only ricochet.
Rocco
Council Member
Posts: 6
Send Message
Post
on: June 21, 2014 05:22
I love the movies, but the books are way better. Peter Jackson left out my favourite part, traveling through the Shire, Gildor, Old forest, Tom Bombadil and Barrow wights.
findemaxam48
Council Member
Posts: 9188
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: June 21, 2014 01:49
Im trying to get back into the books, and I am hoping to get through the Trilogy, TH, and the Silmarillion before I go to see the last and final movie.
We were one in the same, running like moths to the flame. You'd hang on every word I'd say, but now they only ricochet.
Cenor
Council Member
Posts: 5267
Send Message
Post
on: July 01, 2014 11:53
I read the books first and then watched the movies. I think the movies give the character's more life. You can put a face and voice to the characters. I;m trying to convince a friend of mine who has no interest in LOTR :sob: to read the books just for the detail and the learning experience (she writes).
Image "Every good pirate has an alias" Felix glanced down, looking at contraption around the stump of his wrist. "Hook," he answered. "My name will be Hook."
tarcolan
Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 6046
Send Message
Post
on: July 02, 2014 04:08
I liked the films mainly because of the landscapes, although some of the characters satisfied my expectations. How about doing a deal with your friend? They read LOTR if you read something they like. It's the descriptive power of Tolkien's writing that is important to a writer, how to convey a sense of place and time without it becoming dry and boring. In that regard I'd also recommend Lord Dunsany (Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Earl of Dunsany). Not much still in print but Lin Carter edited a couple of collections, 'Beyond the Fields We Know' and 'At The Edge Of The World', which still crop up on ebay now and then. Also 'The King Of Elfland's Daughter', unless you're fond of unicorns.
Hangman Helper program
Cenor
Council Member
Posts: 5267
Send Message
Post
on: July 02, 2014 04:39
Ah ha Tarc you may have hit something. We are writing a book and I keep telling her she needs to read them. Ooh she wants me to read a certain book. He he.

Those books sound cool I will have to check them out.
Image "Every good pirate has an alias" Felix glanced down, looking at contraption around the stump of his wrist. "Hook," he answered. "My name will be Hook."
alatar_pallando
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: December 13, 2014 08:01
I think the books are sooo much better than the movies! Loads of people say they are long and dull, but most who say that haven't even read them! I was so disappointed when I watched the movies for the first time and discovered they had missed The Scouring of the Shire. Plus I feel Elijah Wood wasn't the best Frodo.
“Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
PSK
Council Member
Posts: 1410
Send Message
Post
on: December 14, 2014 06:20
I think the movies are better than they are generally given credit for, but the books (Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's legendarium in general) are fantastic for three main reasons:
1) Hints at the history of Middle-Earth/Arda
2) The languages and genealogy of various races
3) Description and attention to detail, especially in place names, and geography as a whole

And Tom Bombadil
"Tears unnumbered ye shall shed; and the Valar will fence Valinor against you, and shut you out, so that not even the echo of your lamentation shall pass over the mountains." ~ The Doom of Mandos
Gandolorin
Council Member
Posts: 24040
Send Message
Post
on: December 14, 2014 11:31
I have come to the conclusion that the only way to look at all six movies (I have not seen BoFA yet) is to treat them as fanfic - a term I had never heard of before joining CoE. That PJ is a fan of JRRT's seems to me to be obvious. Leaving things out (Tom Bombadil, the enormously dialog-heavy chapter "The Council of Elrond", etc.) may be necessary from a film-maker's point of view.

Turning things on their head (Faramir, the Ents, some of the Hobbits, Aragorn ...) is something I have much less sympathy for - to put it mildly.

And for The Hobbit, there is much only hinted at, much more vaguely and much less than in LoTR. PJ did bring in the meeting of Gandalf and Thorin at Bree (I forget - only in the EE?), which is only to be found in appendices.
And to my mind, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the twelve-volume History of Middle are all appendices to LoTR, not just the appendices actually included in LoTR proper.

I have heard a neutral opinion about AuP, at any rate: my wife and I watched the cinema version on DVD, and she was quite impressed by it.

Not that I do not rumble menacingly at, for example, PJ's concept of the Nazgûl tombs, or Gandalf's being captured in Dol Guldur ... or Azog still being alive.
These six movies are PJ's fanfic, with faults, but done with a lot of background detail - much of which we do not notice; we might notice it's absence.

So while JRRT and PJ do not describe quite the same Middle-Earth, PJ also gave much attention to making his M-E consistent in secondary (tertiary, ...) detail, which is more than many fantasy movies do. But who has had the financial resources to achieve such perfection as PJ had them?
Image
itariliel
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: December 16, 2014 06:57
As an English woman, who has read the books so many times I have lost count, some of the comments below made me wonder whether being English gives me a definite advantage of those of you from overseas who struggle to understand the books. If anyone does not understand the meanings of words then look on it as a chance to expand your vocabulary, I always look up words in a dictionary (OK or online!) rather than not completely get the sense.
The books are a product of a certain time and place. Even I find some of the expressions dated - for example the use of "don't you know" a couple of times, in their context the phrase is one that went out of use at least 40 years ago and was one used by a certain (higher) echelon of society. The master/servant relationship is also of its time.
I would be interested to know your thoughts.
itariliel
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: December 16, 2014 07:10
I should have said I am for the books every time. the films annoyed me at the cinema but I have come to realise that, with a few reservations, Peter Jackson did a good job.
Some of the changes to the story (such as making Arwen rescue Frodo and the introduction of some of the 'humorous' moments eg the meeting with Pippin and Merry) seemed unnecessary, but I could see why some scenes were added.
Leaving out Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs was quite acceptable. As someone else has said it is far more in tune with The Hobbit and is a leftover from the initial drafting of the story as a sequel to that.

The best part of the films for me was Howard Shore's music. I wish I could afford the complete soundtrack, then I wouldn't need the pictures.

I am hoping that someone will give me another of the History of ME for Christmas as our library only has the Book if Lost Tales which I own anyway. Number 9 would be good!!
1234
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email