Should I watch Lord of the Rings online?

[The_African]

It's never appealed to me but do you think I'd be interested? How much does it differ from the novel (which I haven't read).

[The Ace]

You're talking about three full-length films, a marathon session but well worth it.

A good way to spend a day you'd be doing nothing else, but I prefer the book.

[The_African]

Originally Posted by The Ace

You're talking about three full-length films, a marathon session but well worth it.

A good way to spend a day you'd be doing nothing else, but I prefer the book.

I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes. Maybe I'll like the book more.

[Devil's Advocate]

You won't.

I've never heard of anyone who found the movie(s) boring, who then ended up liking the books. There are people who prefer the latter, but they're generally those who had read the books before watching the films. Even if they read them after, I don't think they found the movies so boring as to not get past the first half-hour. They might like the books more, but they still 'kinda' like the movies. I do, however, know plenty of people who found the books boring but liked the movies.

If you really thought the movies were so bad that you couldn't even sit through them,* I'm guessing you'll despise the books.


* Which I definitely cannot relate to. I loved the movies, and count them among my all-time favourites.

[pyan]

The books are infinitely superior to the films: for one thing, they actually contain the end of the story, missed off by Peter Jackson as he'd rather include nonsense about the creation of Orcs and people falling over cliffs, etc.

[Devil's Advocate]

Trust me, he won't like the books.

I have a feel for these things.


And the movies were terrific.

[Harpo]

I like the films, and have never read the books

[Ursa major]

I really liked the films. When I then read the book (it was written as one book), I found that I liked that even more.

I will admit that you may find the beginning to be a little slow (and if so, you may also find the same about the Tom Bombardil section). But persevere: it's a wonderful book.

[j. d. worthington]

I am one of those who read the book long, long before Peter Jackson ever even thought of making the films. And, frankly, as far as the theatrical releases of the films... I could barely tolerate a great deal of them. (I much prefer the extended version, which is in many ways closer to Tolkien's vision... especially in Fellowship).

It all depends on what you're looking for. The book (it is one book, a single novel in three volumes) is of an older mode... what Lovecraft tended to call "old-fashioned leisurely prose" when referring to his own work) so a reader used to fast-paced adventure writing will have to readjust to that; and some people are put off by the opening chapters with the depiction of the (apparently) simple hobbits and their milieu... but without that opening, one would miss the growth of the characters and their experience of the world; it wouldn't have near the depth it does.

So, yes, I would suggest reading the book with some of this in mind, and if you find the opening a bit turgid for your taste, unless it simply is beyond tolerance for you, I would suggest sticking with it until at least Weathertop, and see if that opinion changes. It is certainly one of the most richly realized fantasy novels of all time, with various cultures which are more fully alive (in the sense of having richness of texture and a complex inner life) than the bulk of fantasy constructs (largely as a result of Tolkien's own life experiences and deeper thoughts, which inform many of them). They -- and the novel -- aren't as "flashy" as most, but they can bear repeated readings and reveal more and more depth upon each one... and that is the mark of a truly good novel, rather than a mere entertainment.

(On a personal note, I never really found that opening to be at all difficult, boring, or irritating -- though on first reading Tom Bombadil bordered on completely nonsensical for me, in which I have later come to the firm opinion that I was very much mistaken. So not everyone will have such problems in reading this one....)

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I am one of those who read the book long, long before Peter Jackson ever even thought of making the films. And, frankly, as far as the theatrical releases of the films... I could barely tolerate a great deal of them. (I much prefer the extended version, which is in many ways closer to Tolkien's vision... especially in Fellowship).

It all depends on what you're looking for. The book (it is one book, a single novel in three volumes) is of an older mode... what Lovecraft tended to call "old-fashioned leisurely prose" when referring to his own work) so a reader used to fast-paced adventure writing will have to readjust to that; and some people are put off by the opening chapters with the depiction of the (apparently) simple hobbits and their milieu... but without that opening, one would miss the growth of the characters and their experience of the world; it wouldn't have near the depth it does.

So, yes, I would suggest reading the book with some of this in mind, and if you find the opening a bit turgid for your taste, unless it simply is beyond tolerance for you, I would suggest sticking with it until at least Weathertop, and see if that opinion changes. It is certainly one of the most richly realized fantasy novels of all time, with various cultures which are more fully alive (in the sense of having richness of texture and a complex inner life) than the bulk of fantasy constructs (largely as a result of Tolkien's own life experiences and deeper thoughts, which inform many of them). They -- and the novel -- aren't as "flashy" as most, but they can bear repeated readings and reveal more and more depth upon each one... and that is the mark of a truly good novel, rather than a mere entertainment.

(On a personal note, I never really found that opening to be at all difficult, boring, or irritating -- though on first reading Tom Bombadil bordered on completely nonsensical for me, in which I have later come to the firm opinion that I was very much mistaken. So not everyone will have such problems in reading this one....)

For me , the part of the story up to the meeting with Tom Bombadil is by far the most exciting and frightening of the whole lot. The Hobbits - and Middle Earth - are never more vulnerable than at this part of the tale.

As for the movies - well having read the novels long before seeing the films , the locations impress beyond belief ; Moria and Minas Tirith (for 2) are JUST how I imagined they would be. The characters , the story , the action and the dialogue (well ,th edialogue most of the time) disappoint , but only in the same way that they do in pretty much ALL book-to-movie translations. And as Pyan says , the story has an enormous gaping hole in it ; the most emotional and - from the Hobbits point of view - poignant part of the story has been ripped out and replaced with a Hollywood-style ending - and is missed by anyone who hasn't read the book

[Starbeast]

Originally Posted by The Ace

You're talking about three full-length films, a marathon session but well worth it.

A good way to spend a day you'd be doing nothing else, but I prefer the book.

The HOBBIT & The LORD of the RINGS books were the first fantasy stories I read in my early teens, I was overwhelmed by the amazing saga. Even today, those stories are still my #1 favorite tales of fantasy.


It's really up to you The African if you really want to read the books first or just dive into the live-action films and the animated movies.

[ktabic]

Originally Posted by pyan

The books are infinitely superior to the films: for one thing, they actually contain the end of the story, missed off by Peter Jackson as he'd rather include nonsense about the creation of Orcs and people falling over cliffs, etc.

I'm kinda glad Peter Jackson skipped that particular ending. Mainlly because the film already has four endings. Adding a fifth, no matter how true to the books, really wouldn't have added anything. Especially since they cut Christopher Lee from that film - a far more important loss, imho.
I do agree with the falling over a cliff bit and the creation of the Orcs, those could have come out, but that was in the second film, not the third.

[j. d. worthington]

Just in case you're interested, ktabic: the death of Saruman is included in the extended version, as are several other things.

I don't agree, though, that it wouldn't have mattered... done properly, the scouring of the Shire would have had an immense emotional impact, and driven home several points that, as it is stands, are left untouched... points which were, really, part of the main thrust of the novel.

[paranoid marvin]

Lord Of The Rings is a book chiefley concerning Hobbits and their affaird in Middle Earth. It would probably be a matter of extreme indifference to the majority of them what occurred in foreign parts , however the Scourging of the Shire would have been of high import and interest. To omit it from the movie deonstartes that Jackson is missing the whole point of what Tolkein was writing abou ; either that or it was commercial suicide to have 'the big ending' as a local scrap in the Shire as opposed to a titanic clash with Sauron.

I always felt sorry for Saruman , I don't know why. Perhaps it is more the pity that one feels sometimes for a vanquished enemy who was once great

[devilsgrin]

well we know for a fact that Jackson had absolutely no intention of including the scouring of the shire in the final film. from what i've seen in interviews and in behind-the-scenes stuff, he was under the impression, throughout most of the production - until at least half-way through filming that ARAGORN was the HERO of the books. WTF?!?!?!?!?!? he may be a king in hiding and swing a fancy sword around, but he's not the hero. He's an elaborate distraction and a living banner of defiance in the face of Mordor. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Hero, indeed Heroes, of Lord of the Rings are the Hobbits... particularly (but not forgetting Merry and Pippin's own efforts) Frodo and Sam. Jackson did everything possible to paint Frodo as a whiny wimp, which readers know is anything BUT the case, and Sam as the not-quite-bright-bumbling-Hero-who-saves-his-master. Which is perhaps a little closer to Tolkein, though Sam in the books isn't particularly bumbling.