In restrospect, are you glad you saw the movies?
 

I remember a few years ago when I first learned about the movies I was really excited. I had read LOTR a few times through and then I find out that it is going to be made into 3 seperate movies... seemed like a pretty awesome thing. I was naive to think it would follow the books, though. Even when I found out there would be changes, I still decided to see them and judge them by themselves.. not as representations of Tolkiens work, but just as movies. But that was naive too. I can't go see the movies without hoping for them to be the same. I'm dissapointed by every change. I liked it so much better when the only reference to the way things looked were in my head. I admit.. the way I pictured some of the characters and lands was way off (for example I have never seen a bog before so how am I supposed to know exactly what it looks like), but that's not so bad. It was much more intimate and cool that way. I never even looked at Tolkien art because I didn't want the way I pictured stuff to be distorted. But now it totally is. And I don't like the way it has turned out. Seeing the movies wasn't worth it at all. They dissapointed me more than anything else.<P>I wish I had never seen the movies at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And I don't like the way it has turned out. Seeing the movies wasn't worth it at all. They dissapointed me more than anything else.<P>I wish I had never seen the movies at all.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I couldn't disagree more. I consider the films to be great <B>adaptations</B> of Tolkien's works. I use the word "adaptations" because they have of course been adapted for the silver screen, and necessarily so given time constraints and the need to connect with audiences the majority of whom have not read the books (at least before they saw the films ).<P>Here is a quote from <B>HC Island</B> on another thread in this forum which sums up my view perfectly:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I would argue that people that haven't read the books enjoy the movies for all the right reasons. They are not perpetually comparing apples to oranges and pretending that the film would be better if it were more true to the books. Books are books, films are films. For a basis of comparison you should be matching Jackson's films with other films, especially in the fantasy genre. Then you will be comparing apples to apples. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you are constantly judging the films against the books and worrying about the differences in the storyline and the characters, then you will be incapable of enjoying them. When I first heard of the films, I too naively hoped that they would stick closely to the books (accepting of course that much would need to be cut). And the character and story changes did concern me at first. In fact so much so that I had to go and see TTT twice at the cinema, something that I rarely do, because the changes (which were much more prevalent than in FotR) meant that I couldn't really concentrate on it the first time round. I enjoyed my second viewing far better. And the reason for that is that I concentrated less on the changes and more on enjoying it for what it is (in my opinion) - a fantastic film.<P>For me, the greatest strength of these films lies in their visualisation. The locations, costumes, characters and creatures looked just the way that I had imagined they would when I read the books, almost without exception (the Lemming-Hyenas spring to mind as an exception ), so the visualisation presented in the films does not spoil the books for me. Indeed, if anything, it enhances my enjoyment of the books (perhaps because I just have a poor imagination and need a little help ). And the fact that the story is different in the films and many of the characters are not (to varying degrees) the ones that I encounter in the books cannot spoil the books for me, because the original story and the original characters are still there when I pick up the books again. I can, to a degree, divorce the films from the books and enjoy them as films.<P>So no, I do not regret seeing the films. I am glad that I did, and I will no doubt watch them many times in the future. Of course, the films have their flaws. There are many things that annoy me - editing mistakes and changed storylines that just don't work for me (Aragorn's Warg-borne cliff-diving and the Nazgul at Osgiliath, for example). But they annoy me because they don't work for me in the context of the story portrayed in the films, not because they represent a departure from the story presented in the books. But overall I have greatly enjoyed the films, and will continue to do so.

Alright guys this movie born is tired every possible topic and scenario has been played out everything is just a differant version of topics of old ,,, by the way i am so glad ive seen the movies otherwise it wouldnt have promted me to read the books which i still plan on doing Lol

Well, you are welcome to your opinion, GaRy the WHiTe, but the precise subject of this thread, although touched on in many other threads, is not one which I have seen addressed directly before. It certainly seems to me to be a valid topic, and one on which I will be interested to hear the views of other Downers. If it is not one that interests you, then you need neither read nor post on it.

I saw both movies several times at the cinema and have watched them again on dvd many times. At each viewing I find something new, just as when I read the books, some interesting detail captivates me again.<P>For me, the movies brought the story to life...I now picture Ian Mckellan, Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood et al, as I read. <P>Although previously I admired and empathised with the characters, I had not actually pictured them. Tolkien does not really tell us much about what they look like (hence the debates about Legolas' hair colour etc) and I cannot give enough praise to the beautiful sets and costumes. Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan etc were all perfect to my eyes <BR> <BR>As for the changes...I really didn't mind, I knew there would be differences and was quite pleasantly surprised at how faithful to the books Peter Jackson had tried to be.<P>So yes, I am glad that I saw the movies, and am impatiently waiting for the next one

Definitely. If I had not seen the movies, I would not have read the books. I (yes, I am ashamed of it ) never read any of Tolkien's books before I saw the first movie, because I was a bit too young at the time to comprehend Tolkien's writing. When I first saw FotR, it gave me a little insight into Middle Earth and Tolkien's stories, which left me wanting more. I obviously didn't mind the changes in FotR since I hadn't read it yet. As for the changes in TTT, I agree with what The Saucepan Man said - the few parts that bothered me the most did not bother me because they were different from the book, but because they didn't fit in with the movie.<P>So basically...yes, I am glad I saw the movies to give me a little push into Middle-Earth, and because they are wonderful films. <p>[ September 23, 2003: Message edited by: Goldberry ]

Elendur, I certainly don't mean to be rude, but judging from your first post, I think you should have rethought your approach to The Lord of the Rings a while ago. I don't think even Tolkien would expect anyone to be so profoundly affected by his works, unless it was in simple appreciation of his amazing craft. After all, do you really think that the technicalities of exactly what happened are the things that give you joy from reading these stories? No way: for me at least, it's the grand adventure, and I really appreciate the details and would certainly have liked a completely accurate movie, but the changes were made by a person who loves the books at least as much as me. If you think PJ butchered LOTR, then I think you need to step back and take a look at how seriously you're taking this all.<P>As for avoiding looking at fan art, I don't see why you were afraid of that. I looked at great fan art by unknown painters and stupendous artists who later worked on the movies, but I never thought that someone else's vision could replace my own vision from the books. I'll admit that the movies have definitely changed how I view LOTR, but that's cool. Sometimes, I think people just have to move on.<P>You say, "I wish I had never seen the movies at all." This kind of bugs me. Frankly, I think you need a lesson in optimism, and maybe you just need to lighten up. Someone so excited by these books and then the prospect of these movies, and yet you end up saying, "Seeing the movies wasn't worth it at all." Your favourite stories, then you find out they're being made into movies, this should be awesome! Great! But instead, you make it into a disappointment?

I was really surprised when I first heard LOTR fans complaining about the movies. The LOTR movies were the first movies-from-books I ever saw that actually did justice to the books. Sure, they don't follow the books exactly, because we experience movies differently from the way we experience books-- and besides, the movies would have been way too long if they had followed the books exactly.<P>It could have been a lot worse. Look at the Harry Potter movies: in the next one they're going to have Hermione wearing a pink hoodie (I know most of you could care less , but if you've read the books you'll know it's an outrage...). Look what the did to "The Princess Diaries"-- the movies hardly had anything at all to do with the books.<P>The LOTR movies conveyed JRT's world just as I had seen them in my mind when I read the books-- and they're even good movies in their own rights. The only thing that bothers me is Elijah Wood's overacting, and even that didn't ruin the whole movie.<P>So, anyway, I'm really glad I saw the movies. I made a point to read all the books before seeing the movies, because in my experience the movie is never nearly as good as the book-- but in these movies I was pleasantly surprised.<P>The books are better, of course, but really. The movies were pretty darn good considering what you usually get.<P>[/ramble]

Oh Yes, yes, yes,yes! I really like the movies, they are beautiful, they've renewed my interest in Tolkien and caused me to reread several times and enjoy the magic of the books again! I hadn't read fiction in years, and had forgotten the pleasure in it. Life's full of little disappointments, I accentuate the positve and enjoy!

I didnt know much about lord of the rings to begin with...if not for the movies i prolly wouldnt have read the books. but after seeing it i think they did a pretty dadgum good job...there are things that dissapointed me but theres too much stuff that awed me to be dissapointed by the bad stuff...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Definitely. If I had not seen the movies, I would not have read the books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Exactly, that is just like me, if it wasn't for the movies, I would have never read the books, or had been opened up to the amazing world of Tolkien's work. I think the movies are really cool. And although I too don't agree with all the changes, overall I think the films are very well done adaptations.<P>The movies are the reason I am here, so of course I am glad I saw them

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the visualisation presented in the films does not spoil the books for me. Indeed, if anything, it enhances my enjoyment of the books <P>the original story and the original characters are still there when I pick up the books again. I can, to a degree, divorce the films from the books and enjoy them as films.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Saucepan Man, I couldn't have said it better myself. I love the movies tremendously. They are masterpieces as far as I am concerned - on their own merits and with regard to Tolkien's world.<P>Of course they aren't perfect adaptations of the books and of course some things disappointed me. But I can "divorce" those parts, as you said. Whenever I get upset about the change in the Aragorn-Arwen and Aragorn-Eowyn relationships, I just remind myself that those aren't the "real" characters that I have come to love. The Aragorn I am fond of is in the books. And when the Aragorn in the movies departs from the book, I remember his true character and enjoy that.<P>But the movies provide a wealth of material, especially with visualizations. While I may not approve of Aragorn's total representation, the movie Aragorn is still a favorite of mine because now I get to see the Aragorn in my mind. Also, reading Boromir's death will never be the same to me again. In my opinion, it has improved dramatically with Sean Bean's excellent portrayal.<P>To sum up, the movies can add tremendous wealth to our love for Tolkien. But if parts of the films bother you or your vision of Tolkien, drop them or accept them as different.

I wouldn't have missed out on the movies for anything. They were vivid, imaginative, and a great cinematic achievement. They are worth seeing just for that. I was introduced to a range of super actors, which in turn has helped me to discover other great films which I didn't know existed.<P>I have never compared the books to the films, and while I understand why you all want to, I don't see the point in going too deep. As it has been pointed out earlier, they are an adaptation. I don't think it is worth moaning about every little detail that was left out. The films are fine as they are and what has been put in, tells the story well enough.

The films are simply an interpretation of the works of J.R.R Tolkien, and thus I have tried to criticize them as such (although there are a few changes which I simply cannot be pleased with or even entirely neutral about). I do, however, understand what Elendur is saying when he says "I never even looked at Tolkien art because I didn't want the way I pictured stuff to be distorted. But now it totally is." I try hard to picture many of the characters the way I did before I saw the movie (i.e. Barliman Butterbur, Eowyn, Faramir, Denethor), and it was rather disappointing that the last time I read the books, images of the actors always popped into my head instead of the original images I held in my head. Still, I am not angry for having seen the movies and I try very hard to keep them separate in my mind from the literary works of Professor Tolkien.

Yes, even if they did not always represent the LOTR the way I liked, the movies were a very good portrayal of the books by someone who obviously is a great Toliken fan.

I'm very glad the films were made. When I first heard about them, I was worried but as I began to see some of the images being produced I got very excited. I remember first seeing the shot of Gandalf riding into Isengard and was absolutely thrilled.<P>The films actually follow the books more than I expected. Compared to most film adaptation of books, it is very true to the source, though I know many of you will disagree.<P>Fellowship was the first movie I went to by myself. I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate for my kids, so when my wife I would have gotten around to arranging the sitter to see the movie, I don't know. When I got the afternoon off work a week after the movie was released, I couldn't resist.<P>I was entralled from "The world has changed." to "I'm glad you're with me, Sam".<P>It is obvious to me that these films are made by Tolkien fans.<P>H.C.

I really don't know what to say... I'm not of those people who can talk about something that awes and inspires them the way Peter Jackson's LotR has. But I'll try.. <P>I could not disagree more, Elendur. The first two amazed, astounded, thrilled, and dumbfounded me from start to finish. Mr. Jackson has outdone himself...<BR>One of the happiest moments of my short life thus far was watching FotR in the theatre with my Dad, and seeing Strider; sitting in the corner at the Prancing Pony. He was the single character about whom I worried most as to adaptation. <BR>And he was <I>perfect</I>... <P>In short: <B>Yes</B>, they LotR is, and shall probably remain for a loooooong time, at the top of my list of favourite films.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you are constantly judging the films against the books and worrying about the differences in the storyline and the characters, then you will be incapable of enjoying them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was exactly my problem when watching TTT...I had the same problem to a lesser degree the second time round too , and was only able to really enjoy it the third time, when I nearly managed to push the books from my mind. The main problem was I had just finished reading the books again- I shan't be making that mistake again!!<P>But I am glad I saw the films, because it brought them to life and it (like that other Downer) renewed my interest in the books. Well not exactly...I didn't see FotR till February. It was the enthusiasm of those who hadn't read the books but seen it at least 4 times that renewed my interest. I read it again, did a book-talk on it, and saw the film.<P>As for being unfaithful to the books, although I was annoyed by the changes (and I must admit I did a speech comparing the books to the films ), another director would definitely have made them worse. And for example Minority Report- it was supposedly based on the book, but the story was extremely short, and although most of the material was included, the majority of the story was fabricated, and the ending was made opposite to that in the book (I can't remember the details though). I read Princess Diaries, but I didn't bother seeing the films because my friends said it bore no relation to the story. On the other hand About a Boy wasn't bad, as far as adaptations go. So I think we have been very lucky on the whole.<p>[ September 24, 2003: Message edited by: Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And I don't like the way it has turned out. Seeing the movies wasn't worth it at all. They dissapointed me more than anything else.<BR>I wish I had never seen the movies at all.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> I'd have to say that I am very happy that the movies were made. Obviously I didn't like one or two major changes or additions, but on the whole, I'd have to say that the movies are <B>deffinatly</B> better than nothing at all! (besides the books I mean)

I'm sorry, I can't resist this Estel...(just take it as jealousy from me for never being mistaken for a mod)...but seeing as you wrote a word in bold, I thought I might just correct the spelling. It should be <B>definitely</B>, not deffinatly.<P>But apart from that I also forgot to mention: the films have opened up a new world to me- cinema. I like following what films are coming out etc now (at least, if they have Orlando in them ).<P>*Checks that her spelling is totally correct*<P>Another point- why on earth is the colour of the stick-out-your-tongue smiley a sickly green?<p>[ September 24, 2003: Message edited by: Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1 ]

In brief, I am very glad that I have seen the movies. I consider them to be very good adaptions of Tolkiens work. I loved the book when I read them (and of course, still do) and I don't feel that the movies have spoiled them for me. Occasionally the movie helped me to envision a certain scene or understand a part of the plot better. of course, certain changes do irritate me a little, but I try to keep myself under control and remember that we really are pretty lucky to have such a decent adaptation (think of how much worse it could have been).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>definitely<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I knew that. Bad spelling/hurried day.

Before I saw the movies, I had read LotR some 15 times or so. And as you can imagine, I had formed pretty fixed images in my head as to how persons & places (the latter in particular) was. I had also seen Bakshi's ambitious, but failed attempt at a cartoon version (only including the first half of LotR) in the late 70ties. So it was admittedly with some hesitation I sat down in the cinema seat to watch FotR between Christmass & New Year 2001. But as another poster said, I was captured from the beginning & pretty much sold as I saw Gandalf meeting Frodo, & the ride into the Shire... I ended up watching FotR in the theaters 25+ times (lost count along the way! ). I didn't watch TTT quite as many times, but I guess you have managed to figure out now that I like these movies a lot .<P>Admittedly, it had been quite a while since I read the books last when I watched FotR the first time - that might have worked to my advantage. Still, I can perfectly well seperate the images in my own head, made from the descriptions in the books (yes, I've picked them up again), from the images made by PJ in the movies. Exept, of course, where they are almost the same! Which they are surprisingly often. But there are also a lot of differences of course - I actually find PJ's (& his great co-workers - we should mention them more often, folks!) vision of Moria better than my own. On the other hand, I think Rohan should have been more soft-hilled & greener grassed than PJ shows it in TTT* - but the latter don't destroy my vision of Rohan, & I can perfectly well accept PJ's version.<P>I pity people who cannot manage both book(s) & movie(s). I get to appreciate TWO great works of art, they miss one... <P>*I suspect this is partially for logistic reasons - there probably isn't that sorta landscape in NZ(?).

I think the movies were awesome. However, these movies are adaptations. Filming the book page by page would be a theatrical impossibility. Plus the movie would be like 7 hours long.

Well, the Fellowship cleared up alot for me, I hadn't read the Fellowship fo the Ring thoroughly (I thought Gwahir was a guy with wings!). These movies didn't ruin the books for me, though I decided I didn't really like the Two Towers, not because of the way it was adapted, but the way I got angry when I saw Frodo and Sam yelling at each other. Those are my two favorite characters, and I thought them to be ruined in the two towers, though nobody else seems to notice I try to enjoy the movie, but I can never smile at those parts.<P>I have my own ways of picturing the characters. I at first pictured them like the movie did, but then I realized "Hey, Frodo doesn't look THAT stupid..." lol okay, maybe Elijah Wood doesn't look stupid, but too young to be Frodo . So I've "adapted" all the characters in my mind, and now the people in the movies are just actors. The Elijah Wood character is not Frodo at all to me!<P>But it's an okay adaptation If Peter Jackson wants to make it THAT different, so be it. I'll just keep reading the Two Towers. And I am still getting hte extended version for the rope scene!<p>[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Calliope and Linus S. Underhill. ]

The whole Frodo-and-Sam-yelling-at-each-other thing does happen in the books-- just later on, I think. In ROTK, when Sam offers to carry the Ring, Frodo says, "No, no! No you won't, you thief!" And then Sam starts to cry.<P>So I didn't think they were ruined at all. The only thing that really bothered me was the 30 minutes in TTT where Aragorn is dreaming about Arwen... I wanted to drown myself in my soda. <p>[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Mooncalf ]

Mooncalf, Albus Dumbledore said that quote in your siggy...so where's my cupcake? <P>TTT was ok...except that rather large chunk starting with the ambush until Faramir released the hobbits from Osgiliath...but I'm over it now. Thank goodness.

Yes, I am glad I saw the films, because as I have said in other threads if it wasn't for the films, I would never have read the books.<P>And yes, a lot of things were left out of the films, and one or two things put in that wasn't in the books. But how many films have been made that are based on books and don't follow the books 100%, quite a lot. So LoTR is no exception.<P>And as I have said on other threads, if you don't like them then don't watch them!!!!

Yay! Elentari, you rock my socks off! ::hands Elentari a cupcake:: I thought the quote would fit the whole Barrow-Downs theme of being dead...<P>Yeah, the Faramir thing bothered me too. It didn't ruin the movie or anything, but Faramir was supposed to be all noble and wise, unlike his brother. And it was completely unnessicary. ::rolling eyes::

I can certainly understand disillusionment when one is jarred from a personal understanding of the books to a very different image of all your favorites in a movie; however, I must agree with those on this thread who say that the films are a respectable effort that enhanced my enjoyment of the books. It is sometimes difficult to picture scenes and characters in ME without seeing the actors and sets sometimes, but my effort to find as much Tolkien artwork as possible gives me so much diversity in this tiny sphere of a brain that I can draw a sort of "holographic" awareness of the true nature of Middle Earth, a sort of collective consciousness, rather than a personal one. <P>Sure, I was mad about the Faramir scenes, the chronic Frodo power drain in favor of the "doe in the headlights" theme, the sudden haste and gullibility of Treebeard and the Ents, the general time compression, etc. but a lot of it is inherent in filmmaking and adaptation of a rather long, slow paced, detail-heavy work. I think the spirit has been maintained for the most part, so I am certainly the richer for having seen the movies!<P>On a tangent, I noticed this same effect when I recently re-read "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and then decided I wanted to see a movie adaptation. I noticed that in the two versions I watched (1939 and 1993), both left out Tom Sawyer completely and compressed the ending radically. I was a bit angry when I noticed it on the first one, but then by the end of the second one, I was OK with it, because it was inevitable and the spirit was maintained. (BTW, Elijah Wood is an EXCELLENT Huck Finn, better than Mickey Rooney, IMO, but this could have been script focus..etc. etc.) OK, back to your regularly scheduled discussion! <P>Cheers,<BR>Lyta