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

[Catswold]

Coming very late to the topic, I would have advised the movies first, as once you've read the book, the movies are really disappointing . . . aren't virtually all movie adaptations a pallid reflection of the original work?

I have almost reached the point of having no desire to see a movie adaptation of some book I love--almost. I suppose I am a sucker for the CGI/special effects.

Once in a while someone really nails part of a book. The first thing that strikes me is the feel of wonder in the first Harry Potter movie--mind you, not the whole story, only those occasions of child-like wonder, such as Harry's first visit to Diagon Alley--the music, the magic, it perfectly captures that feeling.

As to Shakespeare, no one has more fully understood and expressed in writing the human condition in all of its varieties than old Bill. Nobility, corruption, depression, loneliness, love, heroism, evil, spite, envy, amorality, etc. He nailed them all and better than any author of whom I am aware.

To fully understand Shakespeare is to come as close as one can to fully understanding mankind . . . at least in my not so humble opinion.

j.d., you're right about Tolkien's prose. There is definitely magic there for those who can appreciate it.

 

[River Boy]

As to Shakespeare, no one has more fully understood and expressed in writing the human condition in all of its varieties than old Bill. Nobility, corruption, depression, loneliness, love, heroism, evil, spite, envy, amorality, etc. He nailed them all and better than any author of whom I am aware.

To fully understand Shakespeare is to come as close as one can to fully understanding mankind . . . at least in my not so humble opinion.

I think you could say that about any of the major poets - if you so choose to. The difference with Shakespeare is that his work has the luxury of being performed as plays. The likes of Tennyson, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth etc., don't get that luxury, but for me their words are far more interesting.

 

[Connavar]

Chaplin humor is timeless, i laughed so much i cried when i saw him dance, sing that silly song in Modern Times. Psychical humor might look simple but its not dated if the comic is still loved today. He is not exactly forgotten. 90% of other silent films stars are not popular culture icons like him.

Speaking books first or movies first. I read LOTR before i saw the films out of respect for fantasy classic and because i always respect book versions ahead of their film versions.

The fact Tolkien lost me in the middle of the first book is another thing. I just dislike the subgenre his series belongs too.

 

[Grimward]

Don't get me wrong. I loved the movies, even while I ground my teeth as the 2nd one departed from the books around Faramir, the Lorien elves showing up at Helm's D, etc. Jackson did wonders with these 3 films on many fronts, and deserves the praise he's received.

Having said that, there really isn't any comparison. I'm probably really late to this party, but read the books. Even were he allowed twice as much time for each film Jackson could never hope to convey the history, the culture, the sheer feel and knowledge of Middle Earth the way the books do. Odd as this sounds, when I watch the movies, I feel like a spectator, but when I read the books, I am there.

 

[Isildur's Heir]

I agree, the films could never compare to the depth of the books. I watched the films first and regretted it after I'd read the books, they were so much more ... full. And there are a few cool scenes omitted in the films.
But I also found that the films were much easier to understand after reading the books, as I watched them half-heartedly at first, so didn't capture everything important.

 

[THX-1138]

I'm almost done with Fellowship at this point. Loving every bit of it... except Tom Bombadil. Didn't understand what was the point of that guy.

Btw, the only Shakespeare I've read is Romeo and Juliet.

 

[Grimward]

I think there's a thread or two here that might offer you ideas on Bombadil's purpose, but definitely don't go there until you finish the story.

 

[Siberian]

While LOTR movies seems like Middle-earth because they have the same characters and basic plot and, most importantly, great visuals courtesy of Lee and Howe, they don't do the books much justice. Most of the themes are either missing, or altered or given the most perfunctory treatment (ex: pity, power). Sure, it's PJ's vision - well, his vision is the opposite of Tolkien's. Just keep that in mind when you watch the movies.