In spite of being an SF/Fantasy fan for decades, I’ve never read the books, and never seen the movies. I plan to rectify that, starting this week.
Usually, when I watch a movie based on a book with a fairly complex plot, I wonder how anyone who hasn’t read the book could possibly know what’s going on.
But these movies are pretty long, especially the extended editions, and they are so popular that people who didn’t read the books must have enjoyed them, so I’m wondering whether it might not be better to watch the movies first, then read the books.
Assuming I read the books eventually, so I get everything that’s left out of the movies, would people who have enjoyed both the books and the movies recommend that I read the books first, or watch the movies first?
Whoo… I’d never go that far! Jolly good read, but as far as great books of the 20th century, not even in the top 100.
Book first. You’ll know a lot more of what the heck is going on. If I’d seen the movies first, I’d still be totally bewildered about what the hell was going on.
(And read “The Hobbit” before “Lord of the Rings.” It’s more fun that way.)
Watch Fellowship of the Rings first, then read the books, then watch the last two movies. The first movie is one of the best page-to-screen adaptations I’ve ever seen. The first book drags a lot, and a lot of people bounce off of it, particularly if they’re reading it after already being a fantasy lit. fan for their whole lives. The first movie pares down a lot of the meandering and maundering into a tighter, more focused narrative. Having the film in your head already might help push through the drier bits of the book.
The second and third movies aren’t nearly as strong as the first, although their still pretty good. The second and third books, on the other hand, improve vastly over the first, and should be enjoyed first on their own merits, before consuming their adaptations.
I never read the books all the way through until after the first movie came out. (All that poetry and lofty Edwardian prose can be off-putting to a teenager.)
I’ve always been more of a movie first person, if I haven’t already read the book. I find the movies can be disappointing, since they always have to skip stuff, if I have the book in my head first. The other way around, I can enjoy the movie for what it is, and then the book fills everything in after.
If you are a reader, absolutely read The Hobbit first, then The Lord of the Rings. Then see the movies, if you like. Do not let your visualization and understanding of the books be controlled and compromised by the movies.
OK, the consensus seems to be, I should read the book first, except I should read The Hobbit first, except I should see the first movie of the trilogy first, unless I see all the movies first.
Do I hear any recommendations for seeing the second movie first?
Seriously, thanks for all the responses. I’ll make the optimistic interpretation that I’ll like it no matter what order I end up using.
Read “The Hobbit” now. In my opinion, it’s the best out of the 4. Don’t bother with the “Hobbit” movies, though.
Then read the trilogy. Movies later. The films are a great companion piece to the books, even though the books lose significant enjoyment after the first read.
I’m old school. Absolutely books first. And I always treat LOTR not as a Trilogy, but I add The Hobbit as the first book, so a quartet. Then the three LOTR extended cut movies. A box set of the three extended cut versions in on Amazon for under $60.
As stated above, ignore the Hobbit movies. Horrible film making.
Some people who hadn’t read the books first were confused by the rapid events and cuts of the movies, especially the second and third. Long as the movies are, they don’t cover everything.
Just realize that the tone and voice of The Hobbit is lighter, for children. The tone of LotR is epic, high fantasy. It is more serious, draws on the great medieval European epics and medieval Scandinavian ballads and lore, the diction becomes more formal as the action progresses from the earthy affairs of the hobbits to the concerns of honor and good vs evil of the nobility. My own preference has always been for LotR, even when I was a kid.
I tried numerous times to read LOTR, and I just couldn’t take it until after I saw the movies. I was already familiar with the plot from having seen the Ralph Bakshi version. But the book is often a total slog, and there are some lengthy portions that are very reader-unfriendly and should have been cut entirely (Tom Bombadil, anyone?)
I’m a huge fan of the books, but I think I would say movies first (or at least, as suggested, the first movie first). The books are much richer, and for some people their familiarity with the books lessened their enjoyment of the movies. On the other hand, I don’t know that I’ve heard anyone complain that the movie ruined the books for them.
