Lord of the Rings (seen the movies, not read the books)

Post Reply New Topic

I've mentioned this many times before and I wanted to again, especially since I've just recently got the Blu-Ray boxset of the trilogy's extended version and I've just finished watching The Fellowship of the Ring and only half of the documentaries on the first disc which has the special feautures. What I might say might sound ridiculous but hear me out. I love these movies but maybe not enough to actually read the books, though if I were to do a list of my top 20 movies you would definately see all 3 movies on the list or at least 2 of them or maybe just all 3 of them in 1 place. I'm not really a book person as I'm more into movies, though on rare occassions I do read some graphic novels or comic books as I do find them easy to read as they have pictures and have just only speech bubbles. I've just recently read Kick Ass 2 and there's a movie of it coming out next year so I can't wait for that. But with something like LOTR it's gonna be all in depth and that's kinda too much for me as I do have a problem reading long sentences despite the fact that I've never even attemped to even give it a try, though truthfully I just kinda can't be bothered too. When I say stuff like that it makes me sound incompetant or even lazy. I just hope people don't think of me or any other person like that. I heard that reading a book is more intelligent than watching T.V. all the time though I don't think it's actually said that way. I guess I'm just too scared to even open a book. I mean if I love the LOTR then it would only be logical for people to think that you've read the books as well but I haven't and I may never. I just don't want people to think I'm a stupid person for choosing tv and movies over books. I just find them easier. Though even at times the LOTR trilogy can be a little hard to understand. I do have time in the world to read books but I just choose not too as I do get distracted with stuff like tv and movies. If I do start reading long in depth sentences I kinda loose my way, get bored and skim but don't remember stuff and it irratates me. I get it from fanfics. But who knows maybe someday I might actually give books a chance though I'm not 100% counting on it. Does anyone else like the LOTR as much as I do but have never read the books because at times I feel like I'm the only person in the world that does. I have more to say but because I'm a little bored with this I'll wait for comments and write some more.

I never could get all that far into the books.

What I liked about the Lord of the Rings was the fantasy villages and people. The plot itself didn't matter to me. The opening part about the Hobbit village Hobbiton was the highlight of the entire series. The Elven city Rivendell was very beautiful, too.

Given how much money the movies made, its pretty safe to say you wouldn't be the only viewer of the movies that never read the books. And I am sure some of them were still quite fond of them, they were good movies despite what some of the book readers say about certain things being changed or left out.

I for one quite enjoy both, even with their differences.

Never read the books. Did watch the movies when they were on TV a year or two ago.

Not really that big into them, though my friends have told me I'm just like Tolkin.

I read all the books and watched the movies. I think, of all the based-on-a-book movies I have ever seen, these held their own against the books the best. The movies lost a lot in terms of detail but definitely made up for it with the awesome scenery and soundtrack.
I can totally sympathize with you about getting bogged down in the books. It took me several months to get through the them, and that was back when I was a teenager and read for at least an hour a day. Now that I have an adult, I will probably never read them again, at least not until I am old and retired. But I will probably enjoy watching the movies several times.

I havn't read them either, and I love the movies. I know what you mean, but I do love to read SOME books ( I could read sherlock holmes till the cows came home). Im quite difficult to please when it comes to books right enough, so thats probably why I havnt ever started LOTR, maybe I should. Ive heard the books are more in depth and that probably means theres lots of long sentences! Maybe youll pick it up and be hooked, you never know

221BBakerStreet says

It's nice to know I'm not the only one. I respect Toilkin for writing the books because otherwise the films would never have existed. But I doubt I'll ever read them. I'm just not really the reading type, unless it's comic books because they have pictures and speech bubbles which makes me sound a bit inferia if thats how you spell it or even if it's the right word to use. I just treat the LOTR films like any other films e.g. Star Wars, Indiana Jones but I have seen alot of other movies based on books I've never read and to be honest I don't think I need too e.g. Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Shawshank Redemption, Harry Potter. Though Harry Potter maybe since there were a few things in the movies that didn't make sense that are probably explained in the books though I'm not really that desperate and despite some of the things not making sense they wern't that bad and I enjoyed all 8 of those movies. If I did wanna give reading a chance I might wanna start with books that aren't so long. LOTR isn't probably the one to start and I'm probably not going to read it anyway. The only way I would ever get to read that book if I was trapped on a desert island with no T.V. or internet and somehow have the book on the island and start reading to pass the time. I just don't want people to think I'm some kind of dub person who would rather watch T.V. than read a book despite the fact that that is what I do.

No, it dosnt make you dumb, it just means you prefer the stories as images rather than words, Anyhow if anyone said you were dumb because of that, thats their problem not yours.

You've pretty much gotten the book experience from the movies, unless you're really into linguistics (Tolkien was a professor of linguistics, and it shows - all his fantasy languages are thoroughly worked out). There were a few minor details changed between the two, and I always heard Gollum's trademark sound as more of a loud swallow than a dry cough, but that's no big deal.

About the biggest change was the removal of the sequence involving Tom Bombadil, who controlled the forest just east of the Shire, but since the novel had that mostly as a sort of story buffer between the Shire of The Hobbit (which Tolkien had originally created as a series of bedtime tales for his son) and the more grimdark world of LOTR, it wasn't really necessary in the movie - and would have taken up valuable screen time. Oh, and they took out the Scouring of the Shire, but since people were already complaining about how many endings there were in The Return of the King, I suppose it's just as well.

One thing a recent rewatching of the movies drove home for me was that the biggest hero in the story was Samwise Gamgee. He was the only being ever to voluntarily surrender the Ring (even Bilbo only did so under duress from Gandalf), he remained properly suspicious of Smeagol after his supposed Heel-Face Turn (in the novels, he makes a point of differentiating between Smeagol and Gollum, or, as he calls them, Slinker and Stinker), and even though he spent a good deal of time terrified, all the way from Weathertop to the slopes of Mount Doom, he never once surrendered to the fear - not even when he had to face Shelob alone, thinking Frodo dead.

My friends have also compared me to Tom Bombadil.

DeaconBlues wrote

I was not aware of this Tom Bombadil thing, this is the first time I've heard of it. I am aware of the ending to ROTK. In the book the Hobbits return to the shire and it's destroyed or under attack or something. Well I definately think that was not necessary for the film as we had had to go through all the other stuff before the Ring was destroyed.

Tom Bombadil was some sort of elder spirit living in the forest east of the Shire; he was sufficiently powerful that he was able to handle the Ring without feeling its effects, and his influence kept the Black Riders from leaving the Bree Turnpike (the path through the forest). He was rather silly in aspect, as one might expect of an elder spirit in a children's story.

The Shire needed Scoured because after Saruman was thrown out of Isengard, he and Wormtongue managed to seize control of the Shire using their diminished power; they enslaved the populace, and began strip-mining the countryside (as shown in Frodo's vision in Galadriel's bowl). Pippin, Peregrin Took, as hereditary Thane of the Shire, led the rebellion that threw Old Sharkey (derived from the Uruk-hai name for Saruman, Sharku, or "old man" - like I said, Tolkien was a linguist, and it showed) out of power. It was really quite dramatic, and I was looking forward to seeing it in the movie, but I understand why it was cut...

More people tend to complain about things from the books that they changed, as opposed to being left out. I know someone online who can't stand that the Elves were at Helm's Deep in the movie and has been known to rant about it when brought up. I have also seen people complain about how in the movies, Faramir attempts to take the ring from Frodo, when he clearly wanted none of that in the book.

They said that him not being tempted by the ring would ruin it's power, but I couldn't help but think "Why the **** isn't he scared of the ring?"

I think the point in the books though was to differentiate him from Boromir, some people have very strong willpower, some don't. I need to read them again, it has been a while. I also need to read The Hobbit again before the first part of the movies comes out.

I always thought it was pronounced Bolomir, but it's Boromir. It's gunna take some time to remember that.