The Irony of Book versus Film (and vice versa)

[Cuarlang / Legladhor]

Those who love the book (Tolkien's LotR) are apt to find the film (Peter Jackson's LotR) at least somewhat dissatisfying; while those who saw the film and loved it without having read the book or without knowing about the book beforehand are apt to be ill disposed to find the book interesting enough to fully read.

Discuss.

[rhodana]

I might be an exception *grins* I have read the books first, loved them and still read them again every few months. I also have seen the films and although I was a bit grumpy that they dropped some chapters from the book ( for example Tom Bombadil and the Hobbits meeting Saruman in the Shire) i still like the films very much and tend to watch them often (though mostly in english because the german sub doesn`t sound so well) , partly because of the great atmosphere in some places (I think Lorien and Moria are especially well done) und partly because of the beautiful soundtrack
And i`m already excited about the Hobbit and will surely visit the cinema when it comes out

But I have also met People who didn`t like the film because they thought it involved not enough action and so didn`t bother to watch more than the first 30 mins. But those people would never read the books because they think it `s boring

[Vendla]

I read The Hobbit out-loud to 2 of my boys when they were teenagers, and we all loved it. I'm really looking forward to the movie.

I offered to read LOTR to them, but they took one look at the size of the book and said 'no thanks', so I read that by myself, and every time I came to a particularly exciting part, I'd run to tell the boys..."OMG,,you won't believe what just happened!"....the part that got me the most excited was when Eowen faced down the nazgul. No matter how many times I see that part in the movie, I get goosebumps...hehe.

Another part of the book that really thrilled me was the balrog...I was soooo looking forward to seeing how they brought him to life in the movie, and I was not disappointed. OMG, they did so good with that....another scene that gives me goosebumps.

I'm in the process of reading LOTR out-loud to Book/Onnika and we're both enjoying it.

My advice to people is they should read the book first and then see the movies, and keep in mind that there's no way they could have put 'everything' from the book in the movies unless they made each one 6 hours long..hehe. So don't go into the movies expecting to be disappointed by lack of content, but be excited to see all the characters you could only picture in your mind being brought to life.

[Ratfish]

I actually watched the movies first and then read the books. Personally, I am not a book person so I am going to have to say that I liked the movies better than the books. Most of that is due to the soundtrack. The soundtrack for those movies is what I think what made them memorable. For me, the music told the story, and not the movie.

[Cuarlang / Legladhor]

I just think it's ironic that the film introduced LotR to a whole new generation (along with subsequent generations who see the film and love it), yet because the people of said generation are to a great extent aliterate (able to read but disinclined to do so), they're likely to overlook the book on which the movie they so enjoy is based. Thankfully, though, some of the people who knew little/naught about Tolkien before seeing the film went on to actually read LotR and enjoyed it as well.

My dad read to me The Hobbit and much of LotR when I was a pre-teen (in the early nineties), so I had a fondness for Tolkien well before I saw Peter Jackson's rendition of LotR.

[Lorissa]

I'm just happy to see any fantasy movie that isn't directly marketed to children - with children as the main characters. Even if they had made a mess of it in comparison to the books, actually getting to see a movie like Lotro without it being scaled down for the benefit of the "tween" crowd is great all by itself.

The Hobbit may be good, but I'm not holding my breath. The movie industry of today is NOT the same industry it was when the three Lotro movies came out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that The Hobbit is actually a Pixar movie with computer generated characters featuring loads of goofy talking animals.

[Hereygifu / Lidrielanor]

The Hobbit, Part 1:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

The Hobbit, Part 2:
www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/

[Oweoc]

I read the books long before the movies came out. I was satisfied with the adaptation. Like Vendla stated, PJ had to cut some stuff out of the movie. He and his writing crew did a great job at cutting some of the fat (I don't like calling Tom Bombadil or Old Man Willow fat but it comes down to time constraints and keeping content that actually moves the story or the ring closer to the end). I don't think we have to worry about being disappointed by The Hobbit. Its not a long book and the movie is 2 parts. My assumption being, they won't have to cut much...... hopefully (what is that saying about assumptions? Something about both parties riding a donkey?)

Of course theres the whole deal with Tolkien writing The Hobbit as more of a childrens book and writing it first before LotR. Then the writing of LotR coming after and having a much more dark and mature tone and content. In contrast, Peter Jackson filmed LotR first, this leads him down the path of making The Hobbit of the same tone as his LotR movies. I have no worries about The Hobbit. My opinion may be jaded as I absolutely love PJ!

[Herebrand]

The Hobbit will be spectacular. I have full trust in Peter Jackson and all the cast and crew. They know how important it is that they get it right, and they will. As far as my own experience with Tolkien's world goes, I first saw The Fellowship of the Ring on DVD when I was 18, whilst trying to read the book. Middle-earth bit me and never let go, and I had completed the trilogy by the time the Two Towers was released :-) Tolkien's world is a massive part of my life and always will be. It was so strange that my dad always encouraged me to read The Hobbit when I was younger, but I only read it after I had read the trilogy, when I was 20/21, and I ended up adoring the book :-)

[Amrun]

The best authors - whether of prose or poetry or even history - give the reader a platform from which to launch their imagination and allow (or even expect) that reader to fill in the brushstrokes left unpainted by the text. So while we have no detailed architectural descriptions of Moria or Bag End, no description of the armour of Rohan or the Elves, we each nonetheless develop a strong impression (if not our own personal concrete image) that we have generated for ourselves, and since they are generated from our imaginations (growing from the seed planted by the Author), they are perfect and limitless.

Film cannot (usually) lay claim to generating such images - its strength and weakness together lies in the concrete images presented, and the viewer's imagination can only range into the emotional realms of expectation - of dread and fear, hope and escape, as invited (and/or manipulated) by the pacing and editing of the film-maker.

I've suffered thru the hype and abject disappointment of every previous attempt to bring LotR to the screen - Bakshi's aborted psychedelic collage, that childish made-for-TV Hobbit thing - urgh. Jackson's "adaptation" - and there is no way, even with 7+ hours of screen-time that you can do anything more with a work of this size - his adaptation was a wonderful success as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, there were "important" elements and themes and entire episodes left out, and some of the characters became rather cartoony compared to the original, fully developed persona, but despite the predictable problems that come with the medium of film the depiction was overall quite satisfactory.

I also think that, after seeing the movie, some of the magic of personal imagination may be muzzled for the first-time reader due to the now-previously existing movie images, but JRR's prose and landscape is so rich that it cannot in turn be disappointing.

In short - read the book, see the film(s) - in that order preferably, but either/or.