So, I’m not much of a book reader, and I got through my academic career on Clff’s Notes and sheer BS. But, after seeing the Fellowship of the Ring in theaters this last winter, I decided to dedicate myself to reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy before the second movie premired. I bought the first book just before Xmas, and just finishd the third last night. Not exactly voracious, but believe it or not I was enthralled. Loved every page, and I’ll probably reread them after seeing all three movies. I’m intending to break open The Hobbit here soon.
Anyways, I’m hoping to get some thoughts and opinions from people who might have done the same thing, and everyone else for that matter.
I’ve never read a book prior to seeing a movie made based on it, so I’m interested in seeing what it’ll be like this time around. The concept of knowing whats going to happen in a movie before it happens is a bit unsettling when the movie dares to be as epic as this one does.
I loved the first book and the movies treatment of it, but was left wishing I’d have seen some of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights, plus the reforging of the sword. Besides that, the movie was very true to the book minus all the singing, I understand this is a pretty rare feat.
I understand this thread might have been done before, but I’m curious what everyones take was on having seen the movie before reading the book versus seeing it after.
I just did the same thing. One of the things that I think was glossed over in the movie that is much more prevalent in the book was the antipathy between elves and dwarves and how both Gimli and Legolas overcome it and become fast friends.
I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the first time about 25 years ago. If and when you go back to The Hobbit I think you’ll find it is a much “younger” read. More of a children’s adventure story. More in-depth than The Chronicles of Narnia, but it seems to me it’s aimed at a younger audience than LotR.
As for LotR, it’s perhaps my favourite series (and I’ve read a lot). The one character that really bugged me was Tom Bombadil. To happy. Sang too much. Another thing that I could never get into is all of the singing. When someone starts singing I fear I just skim over it. Granted, songs were a big part of early cultures; but I could to without most of them.
Since I read the series well before any films were made (even the cartoons) I had no choice as to reading the books or seeing the film first. But I generally like to read books before seeing a film. Normally I’m very disappointed, but LotR turned out very well. In the case of LotR it’s my opinion that the books should be read (including The Hobbit) before seeing the films. Doing so will give the viewer a much deeper appreciation of the characters.
I tried reading LotR a couple of years ago, got bogged down in 150+ pages of Shire shite, and gave up.
I’ve never read a book after having watched the movie, so when the movie came out, I decided to give LotR another try. After getting to the parts about Bree and meeting up with Strider, things really picked up, and I was hooked. I quickly went out and bought the next two volumes, which I finished within a couple of weeks.
I also later read The Hobbit, and am thinking about reading some of Tolkein’s other work.
I’m on the home stretch of The Two Towers. So far, my favorite Tolkein book is The Hobbit. And yes, it is a children’s book, as in, aimed mainly toward children. Still kicks ass though.
Unless you’ve read the books, there are quite a few things in the movies that you may not pick up on. Little things, really-- nothing that could be considered a spoiler-- but they show that Middle-Earth is a very old world with a rich history.
For instance:
While Frodo is lying hurt, just before Aragorn tells Sam to find the weed, Kingsfoil, you may notice something odd in the background. Without at least having read FotR, or better yet, The Hobbit, you won’t understand where they are or what happend there about 60 years ago.
Where on (Middle) Earth did the likes of Bilbo get his hands on a magic sword like Sting? Sting? What kind of name is that, anyway?
In the opening history, the bearers of the Three (the Elven rings) are shown. Two of them we meet in the first movie-- but who’s that third fellow? We don’t know-- not for sure-- but the books, LotR and The Silmarillion, narrow the choices down significantly.
How is it that Gandalf can summon a giant Eagle? He’s a wizard, so he probably has command of all the birds of the air, right? No, not Gandalf-- read The Hobbit for the real reason (one of the reasons, anyway.)
Like I said, they’re just little things. But it’s those very details that show what an ancient and interconnected world Middle Earth is.
I last read the LOTR 7 or 8 years ago, and I plan to read them all again before The Two Towers movie comes out. I will have to get a new copy of The Silmarillion, as I think I’ll read all the books and I lost the copy of that one. I think I still have A Tolkien Bestiary at my father’s house, so I’ll have to look for it next time I visit. The Bestiary has some incredible pictures in it, showing things like the Trees of Light and Moria.
I haven’t re-read a book in years, and have never had so many years between readings of any book, so it will be interesting to see how it is to read them again in light of all the books I read and new authors I encountered. How will War and Peace, The Shining, Starship Troopers, The Grapes of Wrath, Les Miserables, Farenheit 451, Cat’s Cradle, Atlas Shrugged, The Count of Monte Cristo, Lord Jim, Crime and Punishment, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Fight Club, so on and so forth, change my perception as a reader coming back to Tolkien’s text?
And little things that would drag the movie into an unwatchable plodding morass.
Not that I think you’re complaining about it, you’re just talking about how the style is different between book and movie, but I have seen some Tolkien fans genuinely complain that those things aren’t in there. No considderation that while Tolkien might be able to write a bit of engauging history into the book, having a talking head drone on about it for several minutes of valuable screen time would be a disaster. The only thing a filmmaker can do is try to stick to the bare minimum relevant facts to tell a coherant story in their own medium.
The only thing about that which bothers me is that ten or twenty years from we’ll likely have to specify if we’re talking about the book or the movie when we say “Lord of the Rings”. Curse that Peter Jackson for making a quality movie that won’t fade from view like Ralph Bakshi had the decency not to do.
As I recall, Bilbo took the sword from a goblin in Mirkwood and gave it the name himself.
The three shown are Galadriel, Gil-Galad, and Cirdan the Shipwright. Gil-Galad was the king of Lindon (Ossiriand) in the Second Age, who lead the elves at the Battle of the Last Alliance and was slain by Sauron (his ring passed to Elrond). Cirdan does not appear elsewhere in the film. He is the oldest living elf in Middle-Earth and is the lord of Mithlond, the Grey Havens, from which elves cross over the sea to Valinor. He gave his ring to Gandalf upon his arrival in Middle-Earth.
I thought that Jackson did a commendable job in providing little glimpses of the larger Tolkien universe, as exemplified by the examples that SoulFrost mentioned. I’m sure it was an incredibly difficult task considering that those details are a prime reason why people are so passionate about Middle Earth.
I don’t see too many movies after reading the book (Tolkien being a glaring exception as I am a huge fan of the books and am very interested in how it plays on the screen). I have been generally disapointed in how the books are represented and would rather not get my hopes up. Some people I know do a good job of separating the two and just viewing the movie for what it is - a movie and not a true representation of the story. However, I am not one of those people.
I may go see Red Dragon as I thought the book was awesome. But, at the same time, I thought Manhunter and Hannibal were terrible. Maybe I’ll just read it again.
BTW Omniscient, I fully agree about the Barrow-wights. That is one of the creepiest parts of FOTR. But, if you don’t have Tom Bombadil then you don’t get the wights either.
Smapti, I think you got whooshed. He wasn’t asking, but illustrating the depth of development, and the little things you will miss if you don’t read the book before watching the movie.
Hmmm… I’d better go watch it again. Coulda sworn it showed Elrond and Galadriel, with either Cirdan or Celebrimbor as the third person.
And yeah, I was just illustrating that there are unmentioned and unexplained details in the movie which someone who hadn’t read the books might not catch. Those details add another dimension to the richness of Tolkien’s history.
Case in point: Even though I had read the books, my nine-year-old neice had to point the trolls out to me… grins
Actually, Bilbo’s little sword came from the trolls’ stash – the ones that turned into stone. That’s also where they found the two larger elven blades, which Gandalf and Thorin claimed for themselves (Gandalf took Glamdring and Thorin took Orcrist).
But on the name, you’re right, Bilbo gave his sword the name Sting after he used it to fight off the giant spiders in Mirkwood.
Monstre <— just re-read “The Hobbit”, and planning to re-read LOTR soon.
