Which order do you prefer? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Fingolfin II · 07-03-2004, 05:11 AM

Would you have rather read the books before seeing the movies, or see the movies first and read the books? Why?

I personally would have liked to read the books first (as I did), then watch the movies as imagination is always better than movies to me. However, some of my friends who have read the movies said that when they read the books after the movies seemed much better as the books is too descriptive and slow for their liking.

What factors do you think influences this? Obviously one is which order you've already seen it in; that's got to have a major bias, but what else do you think?

ElentariGreenleaf · 07-03-2004, 05:42 AM

I would have prefered to have read the books first, then seen the movies. I guess it's partly because I had all the movie characters stuck in my head, and I'd rather my imagination had created the images in my head while reading the books, but unfortunatly they were all film based. I sometimes also don't feel like a proper Tolkien fan, more like a movie fan. Luckily, i had started reading The Hobbit before I saw FotR, so at least not everything in my mind is based on the movies. I find it strange how close my idea of what Gandalf looked like was very similar to how he does in the films. A combination of Tolkien's superb discriptive skills and PJ's knowledge of the books I believe. Gollum was very different in my mind though, but I have to say I can no longer remember the way I saw ME in The Hobbit before I saw FotR. The movies have clouded my mind...

*~Tarser~* [neigh]

Firefoot · 07-03-2004, 10:00 AM

I am very glad that I read the books first. In the times when I have seen the movies before I read the book, one of a few things happen: 1. I like both book and movie, but neither as much as I might have, 2. I end up disliking the book and liking the movie less than I did, 3. I already know exactly what will happen so that all the amazing moments in a book are ruined. I don't know if any of these would have happened with LotR but the book is so amazing that I would have hated already knowing what would happen - especially in the parts such as when Gandalf came back, Frodo "died", and Dernhelm/Eowyn. (Yes, I fall for all the plot traps).

ElentariGreenleaf · 07-03-2004, 10:32 AM

I'm lucky that I read TTT and RotK before I saw those two films, so at least the plot wasn't entirely spoiled for me. But there's always those bits in the books not in the movies to make up for the spoilers that are

I think had I have read the books first, I would have re-read them by now, and had a deeper understanding of the plot lines and characters, and maybe even have researched all of that extra ME info in Tolkien's other books. But as it is, I haven't. I blame the movies, not my lazyness! But i've always felt book-first Downers have an advantage when it comes to discussing the more complex aspects of Tolkien's works.

*~Tarser~* [can't think of an animal noise right now...]

The Only Real Estel · 07-03-2004, 09:05 PM

It really goes either way for me.

*Since I had already read the books first (many, many times); I was able to follow the movies a lot better than a lot of poor, unfortunate non-book goers that we're completly left behind. It also helps me to see how utterly stupid some of PJ's chanes & reasons for changes are

.

*If I had gone before reading the books, they would've been a whole lot more suspensful. Sure, they still had me in suspense sometimes, but no matter how much Jackson decided to screw with the script, I still knew that Frodo was going to get stabbed by Shelob, keep the Ring, you know the drill. Sometimes I think it would've been really cool to have seen them with no previous book knowledge (or maybe just having read the Hobbit, that would've been nice) so that I wouldn't be ready for anything.

Gorwingel · 07-03-2004, 11:20 PM

Books first, movie second

If you have that option. If you have seen the film and not read the books because you don't think it's worth it, go out and read them because it is

Though I do have to admit that reading the books first did take some of the suspense out of the films, and of course when you read the books you have your own images of what certain scenes look like, and when the movie images don't meet your personal images you can become somewhat dissapointed. But when you read the books first you get Tolkien's true and complete story, which is the best version, by far, in my opinion. The film is great, but the books are wonderful.

07-03-2004, 05:11 AM	#1
Fingolfin II Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where you want me to be Posts: 1,036	Which order do you prefer? Would you have rather read the books before seeing the movies, or see the movies first and read the books? Why? I personally would have liked to read the books first (as I did), then watch the movies as imagination is always better than movies to me. However, some of my friends who have read the movies said that when they read the books after the movies seemed much better as the books is too descriptive and slow for their liking. What factors do you think influences this? Obviously one is which order you've already seen it in; that's got to have a major bias, but what else do you think? __________________ Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta.

07-03-2004, 05:42 AM	#2
ElentariGreenleaf Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Look, I'm over there! Posts: 496	I would have prefered to have read the books first, then seen the movies. I guess it's partly because I had all the movie characters stuck in my head, and I'd rather my imagination had created the images in my head while reading the books, but unfortunatly they were all film based. I sometimes also don't feel like a proper Tolkien fan, more like a movie fan. Luckily, i had started reading The Hobbit before I saw FotR, so at least not everything in my mind is based on the movies. I find it strange how close my idea of what Gandalf looked like was very similar to how he does in the films. A combination of Tolkien's superb discriptive skills and PJ's knowledge of the books I believe. Gollum was very different in my mind though, but I have to say I can no longer remember the way I saw ME in The Hobbit before I saw FotR. The movies have clouded my mind... ~Tarser~ [neigh] __________________ There is a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. Website\|Art

07-03-2004, 10:32 AM	#4
ElentariGreenleaf Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Look, I'm over there! Posts: 496	I'm lucky that I read TTT and RotK before I saw those two films, so at least the plot wasn't entirely spoiled for me. But there's always those bits in the books not in the movies to make up for the spoilers that are I think had I have read the books first, I would have re-read them by now, and had a deeper understanding of the plot lines and characters, and maybe even have researched all of that extra ME info in Tolkien's other books. But as it is, I haven't. I blame the movies, not my lazyness! But i've always felt book-first Downers have an advantage when it comes to discussing the more complex aspects of Tolkien's works. ~Tarser~ [can't think of an animal noise right now...] __________________ There is a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. Website\|Art

07-03-2004, 11:20 PM	#6
Gorwingel Beholder of the Mists Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Somewhere in the Northwest... for now Posts: 1,419	Books first, movie second If you have that option. If you have seen the film and not read the books because you don't think it's worth it, go out and read them because it is Though I do have to admit that reading the books first did take some of the suspense out of the films, and of course when you read the books you have your own images of what certain scenes look like, and when the movie images don't meet your personal images you can become somewhat dissapointed. But when you read the books first you get Tolkien's true and complete story, which is the best version, by far, in my opinion. The film is great, but the books are wonderful. __________________ Wanted - Wonderfully witty quote that consists of pure brilliance

07-03-2004, 10:00 AM	#3
Firefoot Illusionary Holbytla Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 7,547	I am very glad that I read the books first. In the times when I have seen the movies before I read the book, one of a few things happen: 1. I like both book and movie, but neither as much as I might have, 2. I end up disliking the book and liking the movie less than I did, 3. I already know exactly what will happen so that all the amazing moments in a book are ruined. I don't know if any of these would have happened with LotR but the book is so amazing that I would have hated already knowing what would happen - especially in the parts such as when Gandalf came back, Frodo "died", and Dernhelm/Eowyn. (Yes, I fall for all the plot traps).

07-03-2004, 09:05 PM	#5
The Only Real Estel Raffish Rapscallion Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-( Posts: 2,835	It really goes either way for me. Since I had already read the books first (many, many times); I was able to follow the movies a lot better than a lot of poor, unfortunate non-book goers that we're completly left behind. It also helps me to see how utterly stupid some* of PJ's chanes & reasons for changes are . If I had gone before reading the books, they would've been a whole lot more suspensful. Sure, they still had me in suspense sometimes, but no matter how much Jackson decided to screw with the script, I still knew that Frodo was going to get stabbed by Shelob, keep the Ring, you know the drill. Sometimes I think it would've been really cool to have seen them with no previous book knowledge (or maybe just having read the Hobbit, that would've been nice) so that I wouldn't be ready for anything*.