Lord of the Rings - Book or Movie?

[sportndandy]

Poll question: Lord of the Rings - Book or Movie?

Which did you do first, see the movie or read the book?

Which was better - the book or the movie?

[Bridget Burke]

1. I read the books years ago.

Back when the psychedelic paperbacks came out--several times, in fact. Hadn't read them in years when I heard movies were in the works. I didn't want the books "ruined" for me, so I picked them up again. (Actually, I bought new ones; the psychedelic paperbacks were long gone. And, yes, I know LOTR is really one book--but the one-volume version isn't very handy for reading on the bus.) LOTR held up beautifully; fie upon all the third-rate Tolkien imitators cluttering up the fantasy shelves!

So I saw the movies; no danger of the story being "ruined." Some of the plot changes were necessary; Tom Bombadil is a ponderous bit of whimsy & the Scouring of the Shire would have made things go on too long. Other changes are more problematic, but the love & care that went into the whole project showed true respect for Tolkien.

Currently, I'm the proud possessor of all three extended DVD's. Of course I've watched the extra features. I've continued my reading through the Silmarillion & into Unfinished Tales & won't stop there.

Book AND movie. I refuse to pick.

[barb162]

20. haven't read the books YET, but I keep wondering why the Elves

leave Middle Earth when they live in these incredibly beautiful places after the ring is destroyed.

[Freebird12004]

2. Movies often disappoint me after I've read the book

I enjoyed the book more.

[jus_the_facts]

3. Read the book first....it was o'course better...but the movies were....

.....quite awesome as well....just wish Jackson had made THE HOBBIT first because Bilbo's tale is necessary to know goin' into LOTR...besides he'd already built the Shire and so many people weren't privy to the introducion of the RING without knowin' the history of Bilbo Baggins' adventure! :)

[MrModerate]

4. Read the book first -- several times in fact

Since running across The Hobbit in 4th grade some XXyears ago.

The book(s) are among the greatest works of fiction in English. The movie(s) are among the greatest works of film ever.

They are, however, quite different, as two different art forms must be.

However, in this case it was worth waiting the 50 years for the right filmmaker to come along, because Jackson's adaptation, although not flawless, was brilliant, respectful, riveting and etc., and etc.

My one kvetch is that one of my favorite of the book's many denouements is the "Scouring of the Shire," and while I understand why Jackson didn't feel he could put it in the movie, I still missed it. I propose that someone make the SOTS a stand-alone film at some time -- I'm sure it'd stand 90 minutes worth of screen time.

[Seabiscuit]

8. I don't think anyone but Peter Jackson could accomplish that and he won't.

[MrModerate]

10. It would certainly be different in character . . .

Pure action/war of self-determination, but several directors out there COULD do it.

Yer right about Jackson, though. I don't see him doing any Tolkien material going forward.

[Seabiscuit]

17. Well, Peter Jackson *is* committed to doing a movie of "The Hobbit"

[MrModerate]

18. Really? I hadn't heard that.

The problem, as I see it, is that by comparison with LOTR, the Hobbit is a bit of a romp, and targeted at a younger audience.

I wonder whether Jackson would go with the text and make it less somber and serious than LOTR, or consider it just another part of the Tolkein canon and retain the magisterial sense of deep history that surrounds all his work.

In any case, they can put my money in the bank. I'll order the extended DVD from Amazon today.

[Seabiscuit]

19. Yes, it's definitely in the works. Not being Peter Jackson I can't

predict exactly how he'll handle it, but after his work on LOTR and the documentaries that accompanied the extended DVD versions, I view Jackson as the most creative and talented film-maker of our time and am really looking forward to seeing what he does with "The Hobbit".

[WMliberal]

5. read the books. skip the LAAAAAAME songs in it.

does anyone actually read those?
or worse, try to invent melodies to set them to?

[MrModerate]

9. Read 'em to my kids . . .

Made up the tunes as I went along. Kids still love me, but aren't going to nominate me for any composer-of-the-year awards.

[WMliberal]

12. haha. I quit after listening to myself go

"hey dil dillo, Tom Bombadill-o"

I felt like such a big nerd.

[MrModerate]

14. Yeah, but I always thought that a real folk singer/songwriter . . .

A Pete Seeger or Maddy Prior or the 70s guys who turned the entire Childe Ballad canon into folk/rock numbers (names escape me now) could have gone to town with 'em.

[tigereye]

22. I liked the songs

thought they were beautiful. The Silmarrilian explains a lot of that.

The movies inspired us to read the books again. I hadn't read them since high school. I thought Jackson did an amazing job. I love the extended DVDS. Like a course in movie making.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. Love the book....absolutely hated the movie.

Waiting to be sued. ;)

[MrModerate]

11. Just out of curiosity, Why?

Most LOTR lovers thought Jackson did about as good a job as could be humanly/CGly done.

But you don't agree . . .

[Seabiscuit]

7. Other.

Read the Hobbit and the Trilogy decades ago. Loved it. And absolutely loved Peter Jackson's work in putting it into film, something Tolkien didn't believe was possible. Loved the film. Jackson seemed to have the same visions I had while reading the books - his characters and scenery were exactly as I had envisioned them.

So I can't say I preferred one to the other. In book form, it was fantastic as literature. In film it was also fantastic as cinema.

[bleedingheart]

13. No movie can really match the book...but they did a good job

[obreaslan]

15. I read the Hobbit in 4th grade....

I hated it. I figured i would dislike the LOTR as well so i never read them. I saw the first movie, Fellowship of the Ring, and loved it. The following year I saw the Return of the King, loved that even more. I decided I must have missed something 20 years ago when I read the Hobbit, so I went out and picked up the paperbacks for all 4 books. I read them all in about two weeks and loved them! I can't imagine what I was thinking back in the 4th grade.

Anyway, long story short, I love the movies to the point that they made me go and read the books. I think overall the books were better because you can put more story into a book than you can a movie. The movies were very well done though. Jackson kept true to the original Tolkien vision as much as he could. I give the books an A+ and the movies an A-. Not bad overall I think.

[Withywindle]

16. I find The Hobbit kind of tough going now...

...all those cutesy "dear reader" asides. Too self-conscious, although the story and characters are great. The Lord of the Rings is still a much more enjoyable read--though I can see how it'd be tough going for a 4th-grader!

I read it the first time when I was about 12, I think, early 80s. My dad had the psychedelic paperbacks from the 60s sitting around in the basement. Love at first paragraph! I like the movies a lot--I can't imagine anyone doing a better job--but of course they'll never replace the experience of the books.

(As you can guess from my username, I'm even very fond of the Bombadil/Old Forest chapters)

[MrSlayer]

21. Read the books only.

The movies are a travesty.

[Djinn]

23. normally I'd always think the book was better

but to be honest I thought LOTR was a boring dull slog of a read, it's fiction written by an academic with a thing for old languages...and it reads like it.

I know this is scarelidge and I don't mean to piss anyone off but I really hated the books - figured because of this that I'd hate the movies, watched the Fellowship at a friend's because I had no choice and was pleasantly surprised, loved the movies hated the books...how often does that happen.