Reading The Lord of the Rings after watching the extended version of the movie

[shinew]

I just watched the extended version of the LOTR and liked it a lot better than the theatrical release.
I would like to get some opinions on whether if the series would still offer a good reading experience or not after watching the movie, especially comparing to the extended edition from those who've seen it.

[Kevin8or]

I read LOTR once per year or two from my teenage years onward. Then the films came out. So exciting. So excellent. Until LOTR overdose set in. Part of the problem, for me, is that films really are so well done. They became an unintentional substitute for the books.

To answer your question, I needed some distance from the films before I could enjoy the books again. For the rest of my life, I'll probably read the books every several years and re-watch the films afterward.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by shinew

I just watched the extended version of the LOTR and liked it a lot better than the theatrical release.
I would like to get some opinions on whether if the series would still offer a good reading experience or not after watching the movie, especially comparing to the extended edition from those who've seen it.

I haven't seen the extended version. There are some significant characters and events that are different in the books. I'm not quite sure why they were changed in the films.

I certainly think it's worth-while reading the books.

[pwalker8]

Definitely read the books. I've got the books, the theatre version of the movies and the extended version of the movies (great in Blu-Ray). IMPO, by midway in the Two Towers, the movies were essentially different stories than the books. Major changes in various characters, plus some big plot twists.

[Victoria]

I vote for reading the books as well. They're very rich, and worth the investment of time.

[AlexBell]

I also read the books every couple of years or so. I don't think I'll ever bother seeing the films again. I think the films are only loosely based on the books.

They have the same title of course, and most of the characters have the same names. But the events are often different and the characters are often quite different.

[banjomike]

I love the books. I also love the films but so many of the changes in the film just seemed to me to be bizarre. Arwen with a sword? Gandalf chatting to a moth?? Elves at Helms Deep??? The dead breaking the seige on Minas Tirith???? On the other hand, a brilliant balrog, even more brilliant Gollum, excellent Uruk-hai and wargs and wraiths. I treat the films as an interpretation of the books and as first-class fantasy films.

[boydcarts]

The books are to the extended edition films what the extended editions were to the theatrical release, except amped up an order of magnitude. The level of detail and backstory in the books are what really create the world.
I thought the movies were very well done, but they had to leave a lot out or else they would have all been six hours long.

[shinew]

seems to be worthwhile to read, so I'll read them. thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[PeterT]

I view the films and books as being totally separate entities; just sharing some elements.

Both can be enjoyed by themselves.

[Pax]

First I saw the movies and than I read all books.

I am now talking about my own personal experience, no offense to LOTR fans.
The movies are action packed and colorful, which I enjoyed watching. However the books didn't left much of an impression to me. I was a bit disappointed, because due to the hype I assumed it would be a grand masterpiece. But in the end it didn't caught the fire.

(No troll mails, please. this is just the way I feel about it)

[flipreads]

Personally, I liked the movies compared to the books (I read the novels first).

But they're also different, especially when it comes to the ending (or in the first movie, Arwen), so definitely worth a read. There are also parts where the characterization is a bit different. Aragorn, for example, initially gives the impression that he is villainous in the books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Pax

First I saw the movies and than I read all books.

I am now talking about my own personal experience, no offense to LOTR fans.
The movies are action packed and colorful, which I enjoyed watching. However the books didn't left much of an impression to me. I was a bit disappointed, because due to the hype I assumed it would be a grand masterpiece. But in the end it didn't caught the fire.

(No troll mails, please. this is just the way I feel about it)

I can understand that. The movies, quite naturally spent long periods of time with fight scenes that might have taken a page in the book. The books are a bit of a throw back to an earlier era.

[xg4bx]

i like the novels in theory. in reality i find them to be overwrought sleeping pills, tom bombadil alone induced many a douche chill.

i'm burnt out on the movies but if i'm in the mood for some LotR, i'd reach for them first.

it might be heresy for a fantasy fan to say but deep down i think the whole lot is massively overrated.

[Chi Cygni]

I read and re-read books after watching films first. I liked them both. Although the first film gave me impression "walk walk walk fight fight fight walk walk walk fight fight fight etc". Some scenes were changed for the benefit of the film and frankly first book could do without the Tom whats-his-name episode (not in the film either, it didn't add to the story anyway)
Anyway my point is, for the books I really like I avoid films. I prefer my own imagination therefore I will never watch any Harry Potter films. Film imagery would force itself on what I "created" in my head while reading.

it might be heresy for a fantasy fan to say but deep down i think the whole lot is massively overrated.

"Adding insult to injury" I'd say it is male teenagers level (don't kill me)