Book Fans vs. Movie Fans - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Cazoz · 01-29-2003, 10:19 PM

I wonder where I come in. Would I be classed as a duplicitous boy? I've read The Hobbit, LoTR, The Sil and most of UT. But I've seen both films many times, loved them and furthermore want to have Legolas and Merry-related orgies?I'll just call myself a fan. It's all semantics really.

Diamond18 · 01-29-2003, 10:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: "Master of Middle-earth by Paul Kocher (does this count for anything?)" ________________________Ooh, Diamond - I have that on my b-day wish list (along with the Letters). Tell me it's good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I thought it was good. Very insightful. Unfortunately my brain has fogged up and I can't seem to remember any details about it, just my impression of it...except that there was a whole chapter devoted to Aragorn (it was obvious who his favorite character was!). It seems like I read it so long ago because now I have all the stuff I've read on the Barrow Downs filling up my head. [ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

Lush · 01-29-2003, 10:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>THose of these fans who ultimately refuse to read the books because they're "boring", or "slow", or they're antiqities should be considered (I think) a disgrace to Tolkien fans everywhere (see above for the definition of a Tolkien fan). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, duuude, while I was mui disappointed with those people in my life who picked up the book after seeing the film and never got past page eight, I still remembered (even at my rather low level of emotional maturity) that the literary works of Tolkien are not for everyone. Just like caviar isn't for everyone either (for some reasons most of you Americans scream "fish-eggs!" and bolt the second I mention it, how confusing is that for a Russian?).We've established that such people as you described are not Tolkien fans. They're not a disgrace, however. They're just...not Tolkien fans. You know?P.S. I don't mean to be a b*tch, but, despite the fact that English is only my second language I still manage to get peeved when the word "improper" gets replaced with "unproper." Unless this is some sort of inside joke (?).[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

Diamond18 · 01-29-2003, 10:42 PM

I guess I just like the way unproper looks better. I know, it's evil of me.

Aratlithiel · 01-29-2003, 11:28 PM

Aaaahhhh! Fish-eggs! (clop, clop, clop - slam)

lanrete · 01-30-2003, 01:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dragoneyes, i'm with you...WHATS WRONG WITH THE PROLOUGE!!!!! its amazing, oh by the way what do I rank as... I read the Hobbit at 6 and FotR at 7...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspect people who like the prologue probably have read the Hobbit before LOTR. Having read the Hobbit helps one appreciate the prologue better, I think.

Purple Monkey · 01-30-2003, 02:22 PM

Right… Sorry. Didn’t mean to cause such a hullabaloo. Be quiet again, please. Thanks for pointing out what I actually meant, as I think I insulted half the population of Tolkien-dom in that little paragraph. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does the other. I don’t know, though. I’m only twelve, soooo…can anyone set me right? Personally, I don’t think that it matters what the introduction to the Books are, and I don’t think that it matters if you read outside the trilogy or not, but to see the movies (animated or live-action) proclaim yourself as a Tolkienite and not read the books is, quite invariably, wrong. As I leave, may I thank you all for frightening me thoroughly, and also may I applaud “The Saucepan Man” not only for his points, but also for his rather excellent name. Enid Blyton forever, eh? I also try to make it a point to avoid film-based books, but I did love “About a Boy” and “A Beautiful Mind”. I’d advise to see both movies and read the books, as they are all truly fascinating, ABM more so than Nick Hornby’s tale, but, hey.

MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie · 01-30-2003, 10:36 PM

Boy has this thread confused the you-know-what out of me. Well, judging from The Saucepan Man's post after mine (and the post in the thread about not likeing Arwen in the movies) it seems that I haven't made my definition of 'proper' fans clear.To me, if you have read any of Tolkien's works relating to Middle-earth, and you liked it, you are a proper Tolkien fan. If you love it, or want to read more works relating to ME, or have read more works relating to ME, or any combination of those three, then you are a 'proper' fan, but you are more than that also. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to it, in my eyes, if you fit the definition, then you are a 'proper' Tolkien fan.But you are not if you read Tolkien's works, and do not like them. As long as you have read at least one of his works relating to ME and liked it, then I consider you a 'proper' fan. If you have read more than one, but didn't like one, then you are still a 'proper' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter if you like the movies (animated or live-action)or not, all that matters is the books.What I meant as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans is that they weren't properly introduced. Well, you might ask what is properly introduced. To me it is having the story of any ME tale being told to you through reading the books before being told through a movie. You can still be a 'proper' Tolkien fan if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to Tolkien's works, you can be a 'proper' Tolkien fan. But people's tastes can change, and for that matter, so can their status as fans. If they don't like it at first, then they aren't 'proper' fans, but when they do, they are 'proper' fans. And vice versa, it can turn on and off.The Saucepan Man <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Isn't that a bit unfair on those who were introduced to the books by the films, and on yourself? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, no. I hope this thread will show you what I mean better. I think what you thought I meant was that if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan you are not a 'proper' Tolkien fan. What I mean is that you can be a 'proper' fan even if you weren't introduced properly. That fault is on my part for not being clear enough, sorry. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would someone who discovers the books when they trip and fall in a library and have LotR stuffed under their head as a pillow be "nor properly introduced"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be properly introduced. It was by chance, but your first reading experience is untainted and pure, so you are properly introduced, even if it was by chance. Because, when you rad the book before teh movie, you are properly introduced to that tale in ME. But when you see the movie first, you are not properly introduced because you first saw that tale of ME through someone else's (not Tolkien's) view.So, now do you understand what I mean? Sorry for all the confusion.Birdland <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Huh?...Oh...well, I guess I'm speaking mostly of seeing films first, then running across the book later, or the subject matter of the film will make me seek out the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What I meant was how the story was produced first; through the movie or the book. For example, in LotR, the book came before the movie, but in Star Wars, the movie came before the book. I wasn't asking if you read the book or the movie first. Am I clear now? My fault, sorry for the confusion.

06-30-2003, 09:17 PM

I'm a Tolkien fan, w00!

Gorwingel · 06-30-2003, 10:03 PM

Whoa, this is a very confusing thread. So many opinions, so many comments, gosh, why can't we all just get along? I have always considered myself a Tolkien fan even though I have not gotten to the other books past the Sil (though after reading this I will be heading to the library and getting to them as soon as I can). Seeing PJ adaptation did not ruin my images of the places in the story. After reading the book I came up with many of my own visualizations of the charaters. My Frodo when I read the book is compleltely different from the movie one, and my Dead Marshes are much more dark and ominous.I know I need to buy new copies of LOTR (I will hit a vintage book store to buy hardback first editions as soon as I can ), because I do have the movie editions (don't hurt me )Basically what we have determined from this converstation is that to be a real fan you have to read the books, and that is a good thing.

Arwen_Evenstar · 07-01-2003, 12:03 AM

Right, well, heres my view: There are three kinds of fans; PJ fans, PJJRRT fans and JRRT fans. PJ- Fans of the movie only. PJJRRT- Fans who have loyalties to both the movie and the books. JRRT- Fans purely of the books.Well thats my takes anyway... ~nat~

The Only Real Estel · 07-01-2003, 07:43 PM

I'm a PJJRRT then. ( P.S. The books are better! )

01-29-2003, 10:19 PM	#41
Cazoz Haunting Spirit Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 71	I wonder where I come in. Would I be classed as a duplicitous boy? <P>I've read The Hobbit, LoTR, The Sil and most of UT. But I've seen both films many times, loved them and <I>furthermore</I> want to have Legolas and Merry-related orgies?<P>I'll just call myself a fan. It's all semantics really.

01-29-2003, 10:21 PM	#42
Diamond18 Eidolon of a Took Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: my own private fantasy world Posts: 3,460	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>"Master of Middle-earth by Paul Kocher (does this count for anything?)"<BR>________________________<P>Ooh, Diamond - I have that on my b-day wish list (along with the Letters). Tell me it's good.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Yes, I thought it was good. Very insightful. Unfortunately my brain has fogged up and I can't seem to remember any details about it, just my impression of it...except that there was a whole chapter devoted to Aragorn (it was obvious who his favorite character was!). It seems like I read it so long ago because now I have all the stuff I've read on the Barrow Downs filling up my head. <p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ] __________________ All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression.

01-29-2003, 10:26 PM	#43
Lush Fair and Cold Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the big onion Posts: 1,770	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>THose of these fans who ultimately refuse to read the books because they're "boring", or "slow", or they're antiqities should be considered (I think) a disgrace to Tolkien fans everywhere (see above for the definition of a Tolkien fan).<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, duuude, while I was <I>mui</I> disappointed with those people in my life who picked up the book after seeing the film and never got past page eight, I still remembered (even at my rather low level of emotional maturity) that the literary works of Tolkien are not for everyone. Just like caviar isn't for everyone either (for some reasons most of you Americans scream "fish-eggs!" and bolt the second I mention it, how confusing is that for a Russian?).<P>We've established that such people as you described are not Tolkien fans. They're not a disgrace, however. They're just...not Tolkien fans. You know?<P>P.S. I don't mean to be a b*tch, but, despite the fact that English is only my second language I still manage to get peeved when the word "improper" gets replaced with "unproper." Unless this is some sort of inside joke (?).<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ] __________________ ~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~

01-29-2003, 10:42 PM	#44
Diamond18 Eidolon of a Took Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: my own private fantasy world Posts: 3,460	I guess I just like the way unproper looks better. I know, it's evil of me. __________________ All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression.

01-29-2003, 11:28 PM	#45
Aratlithiel Wight Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 196	Aaaahhhh! Fish-eggs! (clop, clop, clop - slam) __________________ - I must find the Mountain of Fire and cast the thing into the gulf of Doom. Gandalf said so. I do not think I shall ever get there. - Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. - Where are we going?...And why am I in this handbasket?

01-30-2003, 01:34 AM	#46
lanrete Pile O'Bones Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: US Posts: 13	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dragoneyes, i'm with you...WHATS WRONG WITH THE PROLOUGE!!!!! its amazing, oh by the way what do I rank as...<BR>I read the Hobbit at 6 and FotR at 7...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I suspect people who like the prologue probably have read the Hobbit before LOTR. Having read the Hobbit helps one appreciate the prologue better, I think.

01-30-2003, 02:22 PM	#47
Purple Monkey Animated Skeleton Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Monkey Island, of course! Posts: 30	Right… Sorry. Didn’t mean to cause such a hullabaloo. Be quiet again, please.<BR><p><BR>Thanks for pointing out what I actually meant, as I think I insulted half the population of Tolkien-dom in that little paragraph. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does the other. I don’t know, though. I’m only twelve, soooo…can anyone set me right? <BR><p><BR>Personally, I don’t think that it matters what the introduction to the Books are, and I don’t think that it matters if you read outside the trilogy or not, but to see the movies (animated or live-action) proclaim yourself as a Tolkienite and not read the books is, quite invariably, wrong. <BR><p><BR>As I leave, may I thank you all for frightening me thoroughly, and also may I applaud “The Saucepan Man” not only for his points, but also for his rather excellent name. Enid Blyton forever, eh? I also try to make it a point to avoid film-based books, but I did love “About a Boy” and “A Beautiful Mind”. I’d advise to see both movies and read the books, as they are all truly fascinating, ABM more so than Nick Hornby’s tale, but, hey. __________________ "Nothing that actually occurs is of the slightest importance."

01-30-2003, 10:36 PM	#48
MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 573	Boy has this thread confused the you-know-what out of me. Well, judging from The Saucepan Man's post after mine (and the post in the thread about not likeing Arwen in the movies) it seems that I haven't made my definition of 'proper' fans clear.<P>To me, if you have read any of Tolkien's works relating to Middle-earth, and you liked it, you are a proper Tolkien fan. If you love it, or want to read more works relating to ME, or have read more works relating to ME, or any combination of those three, then you are a 'proper' fan, but you are more than that also. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to it, in my eyes, if you fit the definition, then you are a 'proper' Tolkien fan.<P>But you are not if you read Tolkien's works, and do not like them. As long as you have read at least one of his works relating to ME and liked it, then I consider you a 'proper' fan. If you have read more than one, but didn't like one, then you are still a 'proper' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter if you like the movies (animated or live-action)or not, all that matters is the books.<P>What I meant as 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fans is that they weren't properly introduced. Well, you might ask what is properly introduced. To me it is having the story of any ME tale being told to you through reading the books before being told through a movie. You can still be a 'proper' Tolkien fan if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan. It doesn't matter how you were introduced to Tolkien's works, you can be a 'proper' Tolkien fan. But people's tastes can change, and for that matter, so can their status as fans. If they don't like it at first, then they aren't 'proper' fans, but when they do, they are 'proper' fans. And vice versa, it can turn on and off.<P>The Saucepan Man<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Isn't that a bit unfair on those who were introduced to the books by the films, and on yourself? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, no. I hope this thread will show you what I mean better. I think what you thought I meant was that if you are a 'not-properly-introduced' Tolkien fan you are not a 'proper' Tolkien fan. What I mean is that you can be a 'proper' fan even if you weren't introduced properly. That fault is on my part for not being clear enough, sorry.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Would someone who discovers the books when they trip and fall in a library and have LotR stuffed under their head as a pillow be "nor properly introduced"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That would be properly introduced. It was by chance, but your first reading experience is untainted and pure, so you are properly introduced, even if it was by chance. Because, when you rad the book before teh movie, you are properly introduced to that tale in ME. But when you see the movie first, you are not properly introduced because you first saw that tale of ME through someone else's (not Tolkien's) view.<P>So, now do you understand what I mean? Sorry for all the confusion.<P>Birdland<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Huh?...Oh...well, I guess I'm speaking mostly of seeing films first, then running across the book later, or the subject matter of the film will make me seek out the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What I meant was how the story was produced first; through the movie or the book. For example, in LotR, the book came before the movie, but in Star Wars, the movie came before the book. I wasn't asking if you read the book or the movie first. Am I clear now? My fault, sorry for the confusion. __________________ Do Not Touch -Willie

06-30-2003, 09:17 PM	#49
Tricia Guest Posts: n/a	I'm a Tolkien fan, w00!

06-30-2003, 10:03 PM	#50
Gorwingel Beholder of the Mists Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Somewhere in the Northwest... for now Posts: 1,419	Whoa, this is a very confusing thread. So many opinions, so many comments, gosh, why can't we all just get along? <P>I have always considered myself a Tolkien fan even though I have not gotten to the other books past the Sil (though after reading this I will be heading to the library and getting to them as soon as I can). <P>Seeing PJ adaptation did not ruin my images of the places in the story. After reading the book I came up with many of my own visualizations of the charaters. My Frodo when I read the book is compleltely different from the movie one, and my Dead Marshes are much more dark and ominous.<P>I know I need to buy new copies of LOTR (I will hit a vintage book store to buy hardback first editions as soon as I can ), because I do have the movie editions (don't hurt me )<P>Basically what we have determined from this converstation is that to be a real fan you have to read the books, and that is a good thing. __________________ Wanted - Wonderfully witty quote that consists of pure brilliance

07-01-2003, 12:03 AM	#51
Arwen_Evenstar Wight Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Rivendell Posts: 206	Right, well, heres my view:<BR>There are three kinds of fans; PJ fans, PJJRRT fans and JRRT fans.<BR>PJ- Fans of the movie only.<BR>PJJRRT- Fans who have loyalties to both the movie and the books.<BR>JRRT- Fans purely of the books.<P>Well thats my takes anyway...<BR>~nat~ __________________ 'I am Agarwaen, Son of Úmarth...'-Túrin Turambar. Arwen_Evenstar

07-01-2003, 07:43 PM	#52
The Only Real Estel Raffish Rapscallion Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-( Posts: 2,835	I'm a PJJRRT then. ( P.S. The books are better! )