Lord Of The Rings trilogy

M

m e l y b

New member
Not sure if this is in the right section but I bought the Lord of the Rings books and films and I was wondering what people think is best to do first read or watch?
Any suggestions welcome.
 
I don't know what is best , i'm just staggered that you have not seen the films yet :eek:

You may as well wait a couple more years and watch Lord of the Rings and the new Hobbit films together :D
 
I'm also astonished that there is someone who has not yet seen them. I loved the book and I loved the film. My opinion is that you should read the trilogy first.
 
The book is generally better than the movie. I think it's the law.

I've never read the LotR trilogy myself. Loved the movies.
 
It depenRAB on whether you are a purist or not. Purists hate the films.

I have read the books over and over again but the films annoy me as my favourite characters have been forgotten about and scenes changed.

I prefer the books. I don't like my imagination ruined by the hash Peter Jackson made out of it.
 
As much as I enjoyed readling LotR once when I was 14, I cannot understand why so many people are fixated with these books. Sure they are a good read but the films are far more entertaining than reading pages of descriptions of rocks and plants, and page after page of interminable Elf songs. My only gripe with the films is that the extended cut of Fellowship is jumpy and doesn't really add to the story.
 
Read the books first, you cannot have an opinion on which is best otherwise. Myself, I've read the 3 times since the age of 13, and I think they are beautiful books (or book, as it should be) and when it comes to the films.... I like the first one, or most of it, and the next two just get worse.... character wise. I can easily watch the hobbit bits, but cannot stand the Rohan parts, or any of the human characters, they are just awful, Aragorn was desperately mis-cast. I could go on for ages, but I'll spare you all.
 
I'm a 'purist' and loved the films. Not as good as the books but I've never seen a film beat a 'full length' book. (Stand By Me is, for example, the equal of - maybe better than - The Body, the story from which it is taken but The Body is a short story).

Elements like the Tom Bombadil section would have added much more time to the film and are really not necessary (I would have spent a little time of the history of Strider and the Legend of the sword that was broken). The only thing I wished he had included (but it would have beem in the Directors Cut - it would have added too much time to the cinema films) was the scouring of the Shire as that showed the growth in 3 of the Hobbits and how the 4th knew he'd done his bit.

I too would read the books first.
 
I am also a purist but loved the films,wasnt keen on the helms deep with the elves scenes,but Gandalf and the Balrog falling is an awesome scene!

I would read the books first though.
 
OMG, the Elves at Helms Deep, almost forgot about that, f***in' awful. I was thinking of giving Two Towers another go, but I can't bring myself to do it now. Add that to Bernard Hill as Theoden, nope I can't put myself through it. Don't et me wrong, there are some amazing bits in these films, some really well realised designs, just as I'd imagined them, but there are parts that just ruin it all for me. Again, Aragorn....... tsk tsk tsk! I think a classic case of just trying too hard.
 
I absolutely loved the movies, and I loved the books - I somehow manage to see them as separate.

The books are the definitive work really, but the films did a great job.
 
Nobody's mentioned the BBC Radio adaptation from the 80s which are probably truer to the books than the films were.

Then again they did span 13 hours so less had to be cut out. By chance I saw a set of cassettes (what are they then?:)) in a local Oxfam shop yesterday.
 
Definitely read the books first. You might find some of the writing a bit flowery, but I think it's important that your first impression of Lord of the Rings comes from the novel itself and not from Peter Jackson's screen interpretation.
 
That's probably because that wasn't one of the OP's options, they wanted to know if they should read the books or see the films first. The (excellent) radio adaption isn't one of the choices. But thanks for bringing them up, I used to have the cassette set, and what a lovely set it was too.
 
I'd watch the movies first, if you enjoy them then read the books. You'll enjoy the films more if you have no idea what's going to happen.

I think if you read the books first and like them you'll only end up picking the movies apart, lots of stuff didn't even make it into the films.
 
i enjoyed Bakshi`s version but was disappointed by the lack of an ending(i know it was down to funding but it was a shame it wasnt completed)
 
I'd agree with this logic. I'm sure you'll enjoy the films, and hopefully you'll wanna read the books. But, on the flip side, you may hate the films and not be bothered with the books, which would be a shame! Oh the dilemma.
 
Back
Top