I am a huge fan of fantasy novels, but I read the LOTR books when I was about 6-7 and never picked them up again. I used to own the Ralph Bakshi animated LOTR film, and I understood that just fine without outside context, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t understand stuff in the movies.
There are a few things which you might find irritating without the additional context provided by the novels, like:
[SPOILER]The Balrog. What the hell was he supposed to be? In the movie, he’s just some big fire demon. Where the hell did he come from? I had to have my brother explain it afterwards.
The Watcher in the Water. Why is there a 50-foot octopus monster thingy living in a lake that’s only 100 feet across? What does it eat?
The Mines of Moria. Where the hell did all the dwarves go? You’d think Gimli would have caught on by the time the FOTR if his cousins were all slaughtered by dwarves hundreds of years previously, as they had been.
The One Ring. If it’s so bloody powerful, why is making its wearer invisible its only apparent use?[/SPOILER]
“Halfling” = “Hobbit”. Of course, Belkar is pretty much the exact opposite of the standard depiction of hobbits (except for the part about really liking food).
One caveat, by the way, for someone unfamiliar with the books going in: The Lord of the Rings is one story, not three. Do not expect for the main plotline to be resolved at the end of the first movie; that’s not until the third one.
And to explain the joke far more than it needs to, in the first few printings of D&D they were called “hobbits” but legal threats from the Tolkien estate had TSR change all the references to “halflings” (a term used in The Lord of the Rings for them as well).
Like others here, I saw the movies first then read the books. I loved the movies, and I’m not really into the fantasy D+D type thing. The books were kind of rough to get through but I’m glad I did. As mentioned above, you will have no trouble understanding and enjoying the movies.
You’re lucky, because you don’t have to wait for the second or third one to come out!
Acetylene makes a good point. It was absolute torture waiting for the second and third movies. The first movie does such an excellent job of developing the world and characters that it left me aching for more.
That’s a good point. One of the only advantages, ok, the ONLY advantage of having to wait one year for the second movie and two years for the third, was that I read all three (four, including The Hobbit) books within weeks after Fellowship opening, so specific details about The Two Towers and especially Return of the King had faded from my memory by the time those movies came out.
Really Not All That Bright, I for one didn’t find any of those details irritating, because I took things as they came, realized that I wasn’t going to understand everything on first viewing, realized that I wasn’t going to understand some things without reading the books, and because I’m not a pedant who nitpicks every little thing I don’t quite get. I kept an open mind. However, between the time I saw the movie and the time I read the books, it was fans explaining those kinds of nitpicks to people on message boards that made me understand so much more by the second time I saw the movie. But they didn’t bother me the first time.
But really, I wish book readers would quit projecting what will and won’t be “irritating” to non-book readers. That’s annoying, just like Harry Potter book fans who know the books well, see that something’s not in the movie, and scream “OUTRAGEOUS!! HOW CAN NON-BOOK READERS UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GOING ON??” when, if the script is well-written, as in the case of LOTR and, say, Prisoner of Azkaban, it’s not going to matter one little bit.
One of my classmates at the time hadn’t read the books as of when he saw the first movie. Three weeks later, he had finished The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, and was asking for advice as to whether he should go with The Book of Lost Tales or Unfinished Tales next.
It’s tied to a vast reservoir of spiritual power which is why the events on Weathertop occur and it makes the wearer invisible. It’s possible to do some ugly things with it but someone who actually works with it to figure those out will be enslaved by it.
I’ve only read the books twice, so I’m far from an expert, but my take was thatIt gave Sauron more powers than it gave an average person, especially an average hobbit, because regular people and hobbits wouldn’t have the faintest idea how to harness its power, as Just Some Guy points out. Anyone smart enough to try to coax some of the more powerful elements out of it would be enslaved by it, which is why Gandalf was so freaked by it. That’s what I got out of it anyway.
I really don’t think we ought to be having spoiler conversations about LOTR in a thread started by someone who hasn’t even seen the movies yet, let alone read the books.
[spoiler] Simple answer? The ring corrupts people.
Slightly more complex…
People only THINK the ring bestows extraordinary power, because that’s the subtle magic that it works on those it happens to be near. The ring was forged by Sauron using his own essence and at the time of LOTR that’s still the main force working through it.
The ring is not an inanimate object. It has a force, (a considerable force), and a will of it’s own separate from those who wear it. It’s constantly attempting to return to Sauron and will attempt to manipulate anyone near it to those ends. This is why Frodo, (and Isildur), is incapable of simply pitching it into the lava when he reaches Mt. Doom. It’s not so much that he wants to keep the ring, (make no mistake, he does want to keep it), but that the ring doesn’t want to be destroyed. It’s twisted him to the point where he simply can’t do it.
The ring’s true power lies not in any external force, but in it’s ability to twist and manipulate the emotions and desires of those near it.
There are characters, both in the movies and the book, who show an uncommon ability to resist or completely ignore it’s power and there are many explanations for why this may be so. Some are good reasons, others are simply handwaving which is why particular infamous scenes were cut from the movie. I’m not saying these decisions were good or bad, but they are understandable at least.
I consider myself a fan but not an expert. I’m sure others can expound or correct any mistakes where necessary. [/spoiler]
I couldn’t get through the books, but I liked the movies well enough. Here’s a question for you: Do you find long blond hair on men appealing? That helps.
I seem to be in a minority about watching the extended versions so let me explain why. I think they do a better job of setting up the background which is more essential for non-readers. For example when watching the theatrical version I was a little detached for the first 20 minutes or so because I didn’t have much of a sense of what hobbits were. The extended version had a lovely little montage narrated by Bilbo introducing the hobbits and setting up some of the important themes of the story. Similarly the TTT extended version did a nice job of fleshing out the relationship between Faramir,Boromir and Denethor which is important in ROTK.
I should add that I watched the theatrical versions first and liked them fine though I did watch the extended DVD before watching the next theatrical version.
It’s my, (admittedly amateurish), understanding that the invisibility wasn’t so much a “feature”, but a “glitch”. The ring allows those wearing it to see the spiritual realm, which is why Frodo can see the Wraiths in their true forms on Weathertop when he dons the ring. It does this by partially removing wearer’s body from the physical realm… Though not enough to avoid stab wounds apparently.
Having said that, I remember that I forgot to say this:
I think making someone invisible is only the surface manifestation of the ring’s power, but not the only one. As Jihi says, it makes the bearer not want to destroy it, and makes others, like Bormir, want to posses it. Plus, the ring’s very aura has powers, such as keeping Bilbo young(ish) and aging Frodo prematurely. I don’t know if aging is the right word. The dark circles under his eyes, the heaviness causing Frodo to slow down and be exhausted, and the ring burning a scar on his neck and chest, for starters.
choie, none of these things in spoiler boxes are major major things (yet, anyway), but it still would be best if you could avoid reading them at least until you’ve watched Fellowship. After that, you should be interested.
It would be nice if no one would include any REAL spoilers in this thread, especially regarding The Two Towers and Return of the King. So far the things in spoiler boxes are just some basic ideas regarding the ring itself. Let’s not go any further, please.
:smack: I just realized I did include some mini-spoilers for Return of the King in my last spoiler box. Nothing that probably couldn’t be gleaned from the trailer, but still, sorry, and don’t read it choie, ok?
Put me down for another vote in the extended edition column. The theatrical release was cut for time, but I don’t feel the extra material bogs down the movie in any way. They just enrich the material, and some of the stuff is breathtakingly beautiful or evocative.
[/spoiler]