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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

tom bombadil alone induced many a douche chill.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking!

I love these books. I really do. But even when I was twelve years old and reading them for the very first time in the late '70s... I had to skip the Bombadil tra, la, la, frolic-fest. That's one thing the movies got right.

[Kevin8or]

That the books and films are significantly different is evident to everyone. The films, however, became a quick fix for my Tokien cravings, for a time. (I now plan to watch them only after re-reading the books.)

Tom Bombadil: sometimes I skip him, sometimes I suffer through it, but never do I read every word of all those songs.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

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.

+1

I could never get into the books because I thought they were boring - never having been a teenage male, I had no resonance with the characters. The movies at least allowed me to learn what the fuss was all about.

[WillAdams]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

The biggest reason for the difference is the movie scripts were based on the BBC Radio version.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

The biggest reason for the difference is the movie scripts were based on the BBC Radio version.

The BBC Radio version also skipped Bombadil, but the film is otherwise very different to the BBC Radio version, which was much more faithful to the books.

(Two point that spring immediately to mind: The length of time between "The Long Awaited Party" and Frodo setting out with the ring, and the actions of Faramir when he meets Frodo and Sam.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The BBC Radio version also skipped Bombadil, but the film is otherwise very different to the BBC Radio version, which was much more faithful to the books.

(Two point that spring immediately to mind: The length of time between "The Long Awaited Party" and Frodo setting out with the ring, and the actions of Faramir when he meets Frodo and Sam.)

One other VERY significant difference between the books and the films is the non-linear time sequence of the books, which go backwards and forwards in time between different groups of characters. The (probably necessarily) "linearisation" of time for the films robs them of a great deal of the power of the books.

One example:

Spoiler:

the scene in the books where Aragorn's army is facing the Black Gate of Mordor, and the "Voice of Sauron" rides out and throws Frodo's armour and sword down in front of them. In the films, we already know that Frodo and Sam have escaped from the Orcs, but in the books we last saw Frodo as a captive of the Orcs, and have no idea of his fate at that time.

[pdurrant]

I can see why adaptions have merged separate threads in a linear order, but I'm not sure it's actually a necessity.

But even with a merging of the various threads, I think it should be possible to combine them in such a way as to eliminate any 'spoilers' such as the you mention, although I think that to do so might involve rather long sections of just one thread or another.

[CazMar]

The books were written by a person with a very good, classical education. a university professor who specialised in Anglo-Saxon literature. If you are looking for a "sword and sorcery" casual read then the books won't grab you. Tolkien used his scholarly interests as a basis for an "epic' in the spirit of Homer or Beowulf, not a Hollywood epic. If you enjoyed the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" then you'll love these books.
Movie making is a different genre and has to be a very visual experience by its very nature. It is also expensive to make a movie so there has to be a lot more to interest the general public - you need to sell tickets!
I thoroughly enjoyed the movies, but in a completely different way to the books. The New Zealand scenery is worth watching, even if the movies were total rubbish (which they aren't). I love the books - but I also have had a classical education (unusual in these days) and have studied Homer in the original 8th century BC Greek (even more unusual!). So don't worry if you can't get into the books, just enjoy the movies and the story - the plot goes back to the most ancient literature.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

The biggest reason for the difference is the movie scripts were based on the BBC Radio version.

Actually, Peter Jackson decided that he wanted to do the movie after seeing the animated version by Ralph Bakshi. He then read the books. To a great extent removing the Old Forest was a no brainer for a movie. It didn't really move the story along per se.

[missimpossible]

I'd still read them. I read the books first when I was about ten, the year before the first film came out. I really enjoyed them, though there were some parts that dragged (in particular there was one part in the middle of the second where I genuinely thought I might give up). However, there's a wealth of good stuff in the books, which I have reread twice since then, and I think they're great in their own right. Even if you don't enjoy them, it might be fun to read them to see the effect they've had on fantasy - and literature in general - over the past sixty years.

I liked the films a lot. I think a lot of the changes they made produced better films than if they'd stuck to the text. Certain characterisation changes rubbed me up the wrong way -

Spoiler:

wtf, Faramir?

- but otherwise they're fine adaptations and preferable to the Bakshi version by a mile. That was hilarious.

[BenG]

The three films are actually an expansion of a script for two movies that he originally showed to the studio.

[Lizzie in Ma]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow, exactly how I feel about it. Although I do listen to the audiobooks by Rob Inglais every night at bedtime. And I'm getting the bluray set for my birthday. 26 hours of bonus footage!!
They are most beloved of all my books.

[sonofpendragon]

For me, the Hobbit is brilliant from start to finish, and is the best fantasy book I have read. But LOTR, is in my opinion, a game of two halves as the footy pundits say. There is a really superb tale in there all right, but it is getting to it. I think the good stuff is heavily sandwiched in between parts which vary from not so good / boring to the occasional section which is sheer dross. For me, tranposing as we are all wont to do, if this was music, then LOTR is the White Album compared to Abbey Road. I am not saying it is tripe from start to finish, I hope that comes across, but I think it has a lot of negative things caused by it being over long.

SofP

[DiapDealer]

I was the complete opposite. I read LOTR first. Then when I read The Hobbit, it seemed a little on the silly side to me. Oh well. Variety makes the world go 'round.

I also would have ended the movie version of Return of the King in Minas Tirith after Aragorn says; "My friends. You bow to no one." (fade to black). I was never much of a fan of the Scouring of the Shire and the "off to the Grey Havens" portions of the book. I only need one ending not three or four.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I was the complete opposite. I read LOTR first. Then when I read the Hobbit, it seemed a little on the silly side to me. Oh well. Variety makes the world go 'round.

The two stories are told in entirely different styles. The Hobbit is written as if for a much younger audience.