Reading the book after seeing the movie.

[dgoof911]

I am wondering after reading the book, then seeing the movie, then reading the book once again, is the book better or worse after being read after the movie? Personally i thought it was worse (though still great) becuase I couln't get the movies pictures out of my mind and I miss my own vivid images that I have created my self. Just wondering.

[YayGollum]

I don't know. I still like the book better. My pictures are better than PJ's. :rolleyes: oh well.

[TheFool]

Originally posted by dgoof911
I am wondering after reading the book, then seeing the movie, then reading the book once again,

I did this too; with a gap of several years between readings, I actually found that my 'own vivid images' from the book had changed, which I was quite annoyed about! (neither look much like the film). So now I have 3 different Morias in my head.:confused:

However I'm glad the film spurred me to read LOTR again as I had forgotten much of the detail, eg meeting Gildor, the Druadan Forest people, Frodo reaching Aman... so for me overall I think it was better.

[kohaku]

i also read the books after the movie but still most of my images differ significantly. but i will never know if that's what i would have really imagined...there may be some influence from the movie. but some things, like weathertop and rivendell, are WAY different in my mind.

I heard the voices in the lines from the movie, but otherwise not much.

at least i had no reference for the second and third books, i can't wait to see how they are done.

[kohaku]

delete the "also" in my statement, i misunderstood the original question. oh well, i guess my reply sort of fits in this thread...

[Goldberry344]

I liked the books better after the movie. it made me appreciate GOOD WRITING much better. ;)

[Sam_Gamgee]

i liked the books better. and i read them after i saw the movie. im curious to how i would like it with my own imagery cause some of the ways i pictured things was preconcieved not all but some.

[tookish-girl]

I'm re-reading it at the moment so i'm ready for when the Two Towers come out and I intend to read it again next year for the Retuurn of the King. Since a great deal of the Fellowship isn't in the movie, including Bombadill, (one of my favourites!) I found myself imagining my own characters rather than the ones in the film. Some bits are diffrent, but my Lothlorien was completely different to that in the film, because again, the film didn't show much of it.

I'm really enjoying reading the Two Towers again because i'm wondering how they're going to do the next film and what will be altered. I make films myself, so it's interesting for me to picture it how I'd do it and then compare it to Peter Jackson's when the film comes out!

[Lord Aragorn]

I finished up FotR about a week before the movie came out in theatres, and I'm glad I got the chance to come up with my own ideas and imagery beforehand. Currently I've read LoTR in it's entirety a full 3 times through, so my imagery still holds it's own over the movie's.

[Lantarion]

I agree with Goldberry: seeing the lower-than-average movie really made me re-realize the beauty and splendour of the language used, the history and the characters. The movie came close, IMO, but not close enough.

[theLadyEowyn]

I first read the book after watching the movie, and I think it would've been better to read the book first. I noticed little things in the movie that I didn't notice before, like when Legolas came down the stairs from the big tree platformy thingy in Lothlorien. I remember that Legolas had been spending a lot of time with the elves there, but they didn't say that in the movie. :)

[Gil-Galad]

I believe reading the book first is better than watchig the film first.Although the movie is great nothing,I said NOTHING can replace the book.

[Ravenna]

I don't really think that the film altered the way I feel about the books at all.
I have lived with my own images of the characters for so long now that the movie faces only come to mind when they fit with my mental images of them, Aragorn being a prime example here.
Location-wise, the film certainly has helped give me a better feeling of the size and grandeur of the places, such a Moria and the Argonath, but places like Rivendell, whilst beautifully designed in the film, simply made me think ' thats nice, but not what I think it would really be like', and carry on with my own images.
In fact, I think the film, while excellent, made me appreciate the depth of the books once more.

[Elu Thingol]

I would say read the book first, so you can have a solid Tolkien backround and are not vulnerable to changes that take place within the movie.

[Theoden]

I must admit that I saw the movie before I read the book (bad man, bad, bad Theoden) and though I wish that I had read it first, I have my own mind pictures and they are better than the movie.

-me

[Eledhwen]

I saw the film first (though I had read the Hobbit), but I still found my own mental pictures of the characters and (less so) places replacing the film's ones - probably helped by Glorfindel not being female and huge swathes of the story being cut. Rivendell, Lorien and even the Prancing Pony are very different in my imagination - lighter and more cheery.

[Elbereth]

I am glad I had read the book after the movie. It allowed me to appreciate the movie and the book equally for what they are worth. And if my Tolkien experience was any different, I probably would have never come to this site so, I have no regrets!

[Theoden]

Ok, All of you posts are making me feel a little less stupid for watching the movie before I read the book. I have this friend who was a Tolkien fan since she was three and so sometimes when I chat with her, I feel a little stupid for having waited until the movie to watch it. Oh well.

-me

[Eledhwen]

My mum bought me Lord of the Rings when I was far too young to read it, so it got labelled "worthwhile thing my mother would rather I do", so I didn't - for nearly forty years! I'd already read the Bible three times through before I read LotR. I've made up for lost time though. Since seeing FotR I have read all of LotR several times - the ending still makes me cry (I'd already read the Hobbit), the Silmarillion twice, Unfinished Tales, Treason of Isengard from HoME and the first Book of Lost Tales. I've also read a childrens book called Bilbo's Last Song, which I got out of the library for curiosity - it's beautiful! Adventures of Tom Bombadil is being read in between these, being a collection of poesy <-Tolkien word.(slumps back in chair). I've also read some stuff that claimed to be as good as Tolkien. None (I repeat, NONE) of it is.

[Theoden]

I would have to agree with you on this one... no novel I have ever read has compared with Tolkien. I would say that after the Bible, LotR is my favorite book.

-me

[flame]

i read the book after seeing the film. i knew ther was that there was going to be bit in the book that was not in the film (tom bombadil is one)
but the seens in my head are differnt that the film. nealy finshed part 1.

[Galadhwen]

Yes, many people who saw the film first! I don't feel like half the Tolkien new person now! I think it was great watching the film first because as has been said I appreciate the film for the film which I don't think I'll get with TTT and TROTK *sob*! Also I have my own picture of what everything in the book is like not just PJ's. Also the good thing was that you appreciate all the extra detail of the books or I did anyway:rolleyes:
LOL

[tookish-girl]

I'd just like to say, there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading the book after seeing the movie. I had a long summer break before it came out in December, so luckily had plenty of time to finally get round to reading it myself.
That said, I really don't think the way people are making others on the forum feel stupid for reading it after. It doesn't mean that you are somehow an inferior being! Neither does actually enjoying the movie. It's a very well crafted film, ther production of which was afeat never performed beofre. I'm making a 5 minute film at the moment and having minor heart-attacks over it! Imagine making 3 separate 3hour epics in one 18 month shooting!

Have just finished Book Three by the way, am very much looking forward to seeing the destruction of Isengard in the film.

[Gil-Galad]

I just want to add something.....:).Many of my friends who haven't read the book but have watched the movie cannot understand it and don't like it.That's why I still think it's better to read the book first.;)

[Finduilas]

I think so ,too.
The movie ,especially the american one tries to find more and more love because people like watching love stories and reading about love affairs.
But Tolkien didn't know a lot of women in his life so he doesn't talk a lot about love in LOTR.
Peter Jackson's version shows us a big love between Aragorn and Arwen while in the book this comes out in the end.
I have always prefered reading a book before seeing it in a movie.Moreover,it developes people's imagination.

[Gil-Galad]

And something else about American movies.They always or almost always have a happy end.No doubt Holywood is in crisis nowadays with all this americanism.
So I prefer European movies.:cool:

[Finduilas]

Although the film isn't made in america and the operator tried to make it more authentic lotr is intended for american spectators,too and that means LOVE.:)

[Gil-Galad]

I have heard that in TT there are added scenes which don't are not part of the book.Scenes in which Arwen asks Elrond whether she will see Aragorn again,and Elrond answers "no",and she cries.
I dunno whether this is true,if it is I'll be very disappointed from PJ:( .

[tookish-girl]

If there's a scene where Arwen asks Elrond if she'll see Aragorn again and he says "No" I'll laugh my head off!

By the way, if Lord of the Rings is made in New Zealand with a New Zelander for a director and most of the cast being either British or Austrailian. Is it that much of an American film?

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by tookish-girl
If there's a scene where Arwen asks Elrond if she'll see Aragorn again and he says "No" I'll laugh my head off!

By the way, if Lord of the Rings is made in New Zealand with a New Zelander for a director and most of the cast being either British or Austrailian. Is it that much of an American film?
I just heard so about Elrond and Arwen:confused:
Ok,the director is New Zealander,the cast is British or Australian.....and so on.
BUT Who have the money?New Line Cinema-Ameriacans.Which is the most important box oficce chart for them?-The American one.What is the main thing that American movie companies are looking for?Money.Nothing else.That is why New Line Cinema is ready to spend 200 000 000 $ for the movie,cause they want to have 400 000 000$.It's so simple.And do you know which is one of the most important reason for shooting the movie in New Zealand?It's cheaper.Money has riuned the art.
As a whole I still think American film industry is in crisis.European film industry rules.

[Eledhwen]

There were some American actors, and I thought their English accents were very good (I've seen some very cringey attempts in other films). I only noticed Viggo Mortensen's American accent when he yelled as the steps were crashing down in Moria.

Also, I thought they filmed in New Zealand because the stunning scenery would not be recognised by most audiences, whereas most US locations are well documented on calendars, postcards and in books, and recognising them would throw the viewer out of the magic of the story. Cheaper probably helped too.

[tookish-girl]

Gil-galad, you don't need to tell me about how money's wrecking the film industry, I'm a film student! :) The highly expensive and highly rubbish Pearl Harbor is a stunning example of that.
However, just because alot of money is spent on a film, it doesn't mean it's a travesty of film. I respect PJ a great deal becuase I think Lord of the Rings is very exciting filmmaking and it takes a great deal to get something like it made in the first place. I think for every time something that doesn't appear in the book is added there are 100 things that are in the books that already there.

p.s. As a Brit, I totally agree with Eledhwen's comment about accents in films. Heard **** Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins? Oh the pain! :D

[Froggum]

Personally, I wish no one made movies of my favorite books, because my imagery gets very confused. I'm now torn, as I read the two towers once again, between (or is it among?) imaegs from the new motio0n picture, the two old cartoons, and my own, which usually only comes in on those parts never covered by film. It didn't use to bug me. I remember the old cartoons of The Hobbit and the Return of the King fondly from my early childhood, and that's the imagery I've always had as I read Tollkein. As I grew older, I became more imaginative, but now I'm really very mixed up.

Damn you, Hollywood!

I suppose what really bugs me is that I get the things they made up for the sake of the movie stuck in my head. Like Arwen calling down the flood in The Fellowhsip of the Ring. Grrrrrrrrr. I WANT MY PICTURES BACK!

[Calimehtar]

I like the books better since I have seen the movie... but that may just be because I am paying more attention to the book this time, last time I just read it and didn't get many pictures in my head on what looked like what! Though now, I see Legolas as Orlando Bloom and Frodo as Elijah Wood, but that doesn't bother me, because they look the part. And after the movie it helps you see what Rivendell looks like and Mordor, even though it may be different than what I saw when I first read it.

[flame]

Originally posted by BilbosBane
I like the books better since I have seen the movie... but that may just be because I am paying more attention to the book this time, last time I just read it and didn't get many pictures in my head on what looked like what! Though now, I see Legolas as Orlando Bloom and Frodo as Elijah Wood, but that doesn't bother me, because they look the part. And after the movie it helps you see what Rivendell looks like and Mordor, even though it may be different than what I saw when I first read it.

to me all cast in the film are in my head when reading the book.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by tookish-girl
Gil-galad, you don't need to tell me about how money's wrecking the film industry, I'm a film student! :) The highly expensive and highly rubbish Pearl Harbor is a stunning example of that.
However, just because alot of money is spent on a film, it doesn't mean it's a travesty of film. I respect PJ a great deal becuase I think Lord of the Rings is very exciting filmmaking and it takes a great deal to get something like it made in the first place. I think for every time something that doesn't appear in the book is added there are 100 things that are in the books that already there.

p.s. As a Brit, I totally agree with Eledhwen's comment about accents in films. Heard **** Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins? Oh the pain! :D
WOW I can't believe!I found someone who loves movies.I'm so glad there is somebody who likes movies as much as me or even more.
I totally agree about Pearl Harbour and let me tell you my opinion.This movie shouldn't be Pear Harbour,but a movie with title which is more romantic.I can't accept that someone can present all these historical events only in 30 minutes and the other 150 are just a love triangle.It's awful.
Having in mind you are a Brit I must confess I like British movies,but that doesn't mean I like Harry Potter.
About accents in the LOTR I checked the moment when Viggo is in Moria and comparing it with the other part of the movie and his language there I would agree with you and Eledhwen.:cool: ;) :p