Book first or Films first? Never read LOTR... NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!!

[HareBrain]

even though 33% of it is incomprehensible to us Brits...

I first read it 25 years ago, and have been amazed how many names that I originally thought were made-up have appeared over the years in things I've read or TV I've watched. "Goodgulf" I've only ever seen once, on a fuel pump in some rubbish American detective programme. Spotting them is good fun.

 

[devilsgrin]

i'd have to say, judging by your saying your a movies person... Definitely watch the movies first. Aside from Peter Jackson admittedly adding some rather juvenile things, especially in Two Towers, but in all three really, overall they're utterly brilliant movies. Thankfully by the end of Return of the King, he'd realised that Aragorn is NOT the hero of the piece, and shifted his epic focus onto Frodo and Sam.
If you enjoy the movies, then go for the books. Fellowship is a great first book (well first two books, since the three volumes are 2 books each). If you can get through Fellowship, with its frequent meandering, your good for the rest.

 

[odangutan]

Surprised that no-one's mentioned watching the Ralphi Bakshi quasi-animation yet. Yeah, so it stops before the end of the story but, y'know, can't have it all!

 

[Anne Lyle]

You're surprised???

It's not totally awful, but compared to the Jackson movies, it doesn't exactly sell the books...

 

[odangutan]

You're surprised???

It's not totally awful, but compared to the Jackson movies, it doesn't exactly sell the books...

I think it's worth mentioning because a) it's not as faithful to the story as Jackson's films and b) it doesn't give the end away properly. This means less spoilers and you get a filmic experience without ruining surprises of the book.

 

[j d worthington]

Odd thing about the Bakshi version is that the script was (iirc) by Peter S. Beagle, who is a great admirer of Tolkien, as well as having written his own share of fantasies (A Fine and Private Place, The Last Unicorn, Unicorn Sonata, "Come, Lady Death", "Lila the Werewolf", etc.). I'd like to see his original script, as I've a feeling major changes were made; I could be wrong on this, though....

There are things I like about the Bakshi version, but overall I'd be hesitant about suggesting it, myself, especially to a newcomer.....

 

[River Boy]

I don't know what to recommend, but my own love for the story came from watching the Ralph Bakshi film first, loving it but getting annoyed there was no sequel, then reading the books.

Jackson's films have great moments but are an interpretation of the books I pretty much disagree with, whereas Bakshi's was fleeting but spot on.

 

[Clansman]

I have a hard and fast rule: always read the books first. Especially important in LOTR, as you will get a very flawed view of several characters (Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli, Elrond and Faramir are waaaaay off base) and this will change your view of the story. Other characters are bang on (Gandalf was brilliantly perfect, as are Bilbo, Sam, and Merry and Pippin. Legolas wasn't bad. Galadriel was just as I'd imagined.) It is too bad that Gimli was ascribed the role of comic relief. He was much more respectable, and still funny, in the books.

I have read the books the better part of ten times. Start with The Hobbit. It sets the stage, and is a really easy read (it is a children's story, after all). Then, dive into the LOTR books, and let the ancientness of the story take you away. It was written in a different time, and it shows, so don't carry modern expectations into it.

Then, get the blue ray director's versions of the film, and see how long you can stay awake.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Parts of the Bakshi animation are wonderful to watch on a purely artistic level, but the film as a whole - ignoring the fact that it ends so early - is a total dog's dinner.

 

[Anne Lyle]

The bit that always amuses me about the Bakshi version is the scene with Frodo and Boromir facing one another across a clearing on the summit of Amon Hen, having That (spoiler-free) Debate. The camera switches from Frodo's PoV to Boromir's and back - and the moon is in the background on every shot!

 

[River Boy]

Didn't feel that Gandalf, in the Jackson version, was anything like in the book at all. The Gandalf in the book is a no-nonsense General, he thinks everyone must play their part in the war against Sauron and works hard to get all involved, whereas in the film he gets all sentimental about what might happen to poor Frodo.

 

[Overread]

I think he's sentimental in his own way in the book as well; its just its displayed more mutly as things heat up in the book. Also I think that part of his sentiment in the films is to help try and convey more of the battle of wills that Frodo was taking part in which would otherwise have carried poorly in the films.

 

[Anne Lyle]

True - movies have to put a lot more on-screen as succinctly as possible, because they don't have time to spend on long, character-building scenes. Hence the change to the way they introduce Merry and Pippin - in the movie they have to show the characters as lovable rogues from the get-go, rather than building up to that through several chapters.

 

[odangutan]

True - movies have to put a lot more on-screen

It comes in pints...

 

[Anne Lyle]

The movies are definitely funnier than the book!

 

[Overread]

They also controlled it well - though I still feel that Merry and Pipin needed a bit more show of their fighting side (that was sadly lacking due to one part being missing from the film that I won't mention cause someone has to read the books still). But they managed to make them more comical without making them into outrageous fools - something all too easily done in many films which jars things for the viewer and breaks the atmosphere.

 

[Clansman]

But they managed to make them more comical without making them into outrageous fools - something all too easily done in many films which jars things for the viewer and breaks the atmosphere.

You mean like what Jackson did to Gimli?

 

[Forgotten Realms]

Well, I first read LOTR back in 1984. It was the original translation from Margaret Carroux (German translation). Today's translation by Max Krege is a horror. Later on, I read the English originals.

Then I ran for the cartoon film by Ralph Bakshi. It tended greatly to the books but ended somewhere in the middle of it when meeting the first time with the Riders of Rohan, I think. There should have been a second part of the cartoon but only known in the U.S. I never got to see it.

Now the new episodes, about 10 years ago: First I have to state a dilemma - when you have read the books first you will always comply contents to contents. Third part of trilogy was best adapted to the books. First part was agreeable but missing perhaps some important things like the situation in the Barrow Downs and where was the rescuer Tom Bombadil and his lovely Goldberry?
Second part was a shock. 10% stick to the book, rest was really invented. An imagined love story between Aragorn and Eowyn. But I comforted myself with "That's what the spectators want to see".

Usually in movies, content is shortened in compliance to books, because you have only a limited time to put in "facts". So you have to decide where to omit something or where not (and probably where to leave something out and instead of invent something new - like in LOTR).
I think that when you have seen the movies first, you will do it the other way round. You will compare movies to books - as I compared books to movies. But there is no written remedy or receipt to what is best - to read or to watch first. It's up to each individual on its own.

 

[Fedos]

I voted for the books. I was actually just getting into reading and writing about the times the films were being made and I discovered that the Lord of the Rings films were being produced, really discovered the Lord of the Rings for the first time over the net. So I decided to read the books before the films came out, and I'm glad I did.

While the films are well made and wonderful adaptations, the books possesses a sweeping mythic history that I have yet to come across in any other literary form.
By reading the books first you'll be exposing yourself directly to the source material, and can pick up on things as you see them in the films.

I guess it's just a personal preference, but I much prefer reading the books before seeing the movies, though I don't follow this rule for comic book films.

 

[Overread]

You mean like what Jackson did to Gimli?

He got one or two silly lines, but I think in the end it wasn't that he was made slightly comical, but that he didn't get as much screen or character development time plus a fair few of his major scenes were cut from the film so we never really got to see that much of him.