Book first or Films first? Never read LOTR... NO SPOILERS PLEASE!!!!

[The Ace]

Bakshi planned to use the profits from the first part of his animation to fund the second (concluding) part. The first part bombed at the box office, so the conclusion was never made.

Jackson took a horrendous financial risk by shooting all three books simultaneously, luckily it worked. I have to say, though, that the film's departures from the books got a little irritating at times, but he largely did a fair job of filming something which many believed impossible.

 

[Anne Lyle]

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Only posting this in answer to earlier spoilers...

First part was agreeable but missing perhaps some important things like the situation in the Barrow Downs and where was the rescuer Tom Bombadil and his lovely Goldberry?

The problem is that that episode isn't necessary to the plot - they had to cut something, and your understanding of the story doesn't suffer one iota by its absence.

Second part was a shock. 10% stick to the book, rest was really invented. An imagined love story between Aragorn and Eowyn. But I comforted myself with "That's what the spectators want to see".

Actually, the attraction between Aragorn and Eowyn is in the book, albeit understated. It's the stuff with the elves that's inserted, and is only there to jog the viewers' memory that Arwen is still around. Her part in the books is so tiny that her appearance at the end would come completely out of left field if they hadn't built up her role in movies 1 and 2.

My main objection is that they completely changed Faramir's character - but we'll draw a discreet veil over that one, to avoid even more spoilers...

 

[Forgotten Realms]

@Ace: Thanks for information. I didn't know that the second part was never realized.

@Anne Lyle: You are right that it is nothing to do with the plot but nevertheless I missed it. Faramir's character was a bit changed, true. But all in one it was a good work as for LOTR was known as unfilmable.

 

[HareBrain]

@Ace: Thanks for information. I didn't know that the second part was never realized.

Well, it kinda sorta was. This was seen by some as an "unofficial sequel" to Bakshi's film, but I believe it was largely regarded as pretty poor, and I've never seen it on any UK TV schedule.

 

[Snowdog]

There are parts of the books missing from the films, a couple of which I think are too important to have been left out.

Anyway, I'd start with The Hobbit if you haven't already read it.

 

[Boneman]

Films first, definitely There's so much more to the books that you'll love if you do it that way round. If you read the books first, you'll be annoyed at how much the films left out. Oh, and be sure and get the director's cut DVDs, then you won't be nearly as annoyed...

 

[hopewrites]

Plus I think the 3hr Director's cuts make more sense then the shorter theatrical releases. Fewer "why did he do/say that?" moments. And if you set aside a weekend with a crock-pot of stew you can watch them all in one go!

 

[Anne Lyle]

Yes, definitely the extended editions - so much important stuff got dropped for the cinematic release.

Hmm, now have yearning to watch them again. Must. Get. On. With. Own. Novel...

 

[hopewrites]

If you change your mind Anne, I'm making a pot of stew, buying some crusty bread and a block of fine cheese.
If anyone does Terry Brooks into movies I hope that's what they sell at the theater, because I always have to have it when i read him.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Tempting, but Oregon's an awfully long way. I could watch most of the trilogy on the flight over

 

[River Boy]

Bakshi planned to use the profits from the first part of his animation to fund the second (concluding) part. The first part bombed at the box office, so the conclusion was never made.

No, this is a myth. While not a blockbuster (blockbuster still a fairly new concept back then anyway), people were going to watch the film and it made money.

I don't have exact name of the people and companies involved without getting back the 'Bakshi Unfiltered' I've leant to someone, but towards the end of the film being finished some other producer took over the studio with the rights, basically had no enthusiasm for the project whatsoever and decided it would only be one film. The twit was completely oblivious that several companies - including The Beatles! - had been competing for the rights to film the books, and the funds that would have went towards Part 2 were just directed elsewhere.

Apparently there were riots in some cinemas.

There are a few such myths surrounding Bakshi's films, for which he doesn't get enough credit. For example, people presume that the film Wizards was a flop, which it sort of was but - to put the film's success in context - it was filling theatres for a couple of weeks and being well-received but had the misfortune of coming out just before another little film called Star Wars. It didn't matter that it was going quite well to all those cinemas that then pulled it from screens to make money from the Lucas phenomenon.

 

[Arkose]

Plus I think the 3hr Director's cuts make more sense then the shorter theatrical releases. Fewer "why did he do/say that?" moments. And if you set aside a weekend with a crock-pot of stew you can watch them all in one go!

I do a day of extended LOTR movies every winter. I also spend the next couple of days going over ALL the extras, behind the scenes and what not. I have came to the conclusion that the LOTR movies are one of the best well put together movie I have ever seen. I read the books first, watched the movies, read the books again and all the changes really made alot of sense to me. (well, outside of a spot here and there but after a discussion with my wife, it seems to be personal preference).

I say watch the movie first because you will still have alot to find in the books.

I just love the book and movie combined and separately.

 

[dlsevern]

I say watch the movie first because the movies are great but the books are better and if you read them first, you could be disappointed in what was left out.

 

[Mouse]

I do a day of extended LOTR movies every winter. I also spend the next couple of days going over ALL the extras, behind the scenes and what not.

Do you watch all the actors commentaries and whatnot too, Arkose? I find Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan's comments hilarious, especially during the extended bit with the ents in the Two Towers.

 

[hopewrites]

Billy and Dom are hilarious!! they were perfectly cast as Merry and Pip. Elijah has some fun insights, and Ian slips in some jokes when he things no one is looking.
I miss having the extended, I got the theatricals when we split the DVD's.

 

[Mouse]

Oh yeah Elijah's quite funny too. Not keen on Sean Astin though - I've read his autobiography and he comes across as 'poor me' all the time.

I've met Billy Boyd and he's as lovely, funny and charming as he appears to be on screen.

 

[Harpo]

I love the films and have seen each several times. I've never read the books and I don't think it's necessary to have read the books to enjoy the films.

 

[dlsevern]

It is definitely not necessary to read the books to enjoy the films. Many find the books boring and unreadable, I have a hard time understanding that but to each their own. Peter Jackson did a wonderful job translating book to film and I believe with the addition of the Hobbit films, we will get a seamless transition from The Hobbit to LOTR.

 

[Arkose]

Do you watch all the actors commentaries and whatnot too, Arkose? I find Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan's comments hilarious, especially during the extended bit with the ents in the Two Towers.

Yup, I am currently making my way through The Two Towers. I just finished the creation/acting of Gollum. Seeing Andrew Serkis in the white out fit with a split screen of the "real" Smeagol/Gollum doing the skitso scene is amazing/hilarious.

But who can forget the Easter egg with Dominic Monaghan's prank calling Elijah's Wood?

I also got a kick of image of Elijah's blaring music, and the other side of the trailer is Christopher Lee "Saruman" grunting/yelling back.

 

[Christopher Lee]

I have always found books to be more satisfying than their movies. Jurassic Park, Where the Red Fern Grows, even the LoTR trilogy all did well interpreting them to the big screen. Books were better imo, but the movies are good as well. The movies have to tell the story in a 2 1/2 hour cut which really hurts the rich information you can get out of the books.

I voted books because its nice reading the LoTR books, learning ALL that stuff about middle earth and then watching the movies with all of that knowledge. I loved it. Books first!