The Lord of the Rings is a very important piece of literature. However, I did not know that it existed until the very first movie LotR: Fellowship of the Ring was released. After that, I was so impressed that I wanted to see its source material. I tried to read the book but lo and behold, I got bored. I love the movies of LotR much more than the books. What about you?
Lord of the Rings is a important piece of literature because of how it started the fantasy genre as a whole, bringing lots of things together that nowadays are used in common. Definitely the movie captured the feeling alright, but the book is still a unique experience.
I don't rate Tolkien highly as a writer. While most people will go around praising Tolkein because he wrote 'classics' and so and so forth, he's definitely not the sort of writer who wrote the kind of interesting book you'd have trouble throwing aside. I read all the LOTR books because at that time I was traveling and the only books I had to read to pass time were, you know. . . The movies are much better than the books. Fellowship of The Ring was the best of them.
I loved the LOTR movie series, but I had no idea that the books weren't very good. Now that you guys have mentioned it, then I guess I won't try to read the novels anymore.
I tried to read The Lord of the Rings books but I got bored in the first couple of pages. It was like reading some old English writing. I don't know if it was Tolkien's writing or because I have already watched the movies. I dunno. But when I watched Harry Potter 7 and read the book afterwards, I still had a great time.
Wow! I LOVE the books! Way more description, more story lines and more characters. How can you not want more of something so awesome? I would bet that those of you that got bored did not get into the meat of the books. Once they get going these books are page turners! Do not get turned away just because of some of these negative remarks. These books haven't stood the test of time because they were boring, they are highly entertaining and imaginative.
There is no comparison. LOTR movies were great but the book is a masterpiece. Plus, I don't think any adaptation can be better than the source material unless the latter sucked or the former made too many changes to the original. Peter Jackson for all his efforts was essentially replicating what Tolkien has done for a different medium and a different age. But at the end of the day, the story is still Tolkien's.
The movie was good and very entertaining. Heck, I watch the trilogy at least once a month. But it did the books no justice. There was so much more history, and story to it, not to mention half of what happened in the movies was skewed for entertainment. The reason people don't like the books is because it is wordy and very descriptive and it is a turn off. People are use to easy books they can just rush through. But I love, love, love the books.
I've read both the Hobbit and LotR books and what I love most about them is the crafted world. I love books with a good, "living" setting, if you understand what I mean. The movies were pretty good at capturing that world and I would have liked to have spent a day exploring a town or city there, even though I wouldn't want to live there forever.
The books are always better than the movie version, I still haven't found any series or book/movie that doesn't work this way, so The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit) is no exception, there is just something almost magical about creating all the images in your head. I'd love to be able to forget the movies and just read the books again without having all the locations and characters with a predefined image already...
Yeah, I remember when I was reading the books I wasn't sure whether Gandalf was a good-guy or a bad-guy! That mystery kept me reading through some slow parts! In the movie though--even when he went through that little drama with ... with ... oh, Christopher Lee played `im ... you know--Gandalf was ALWAYS that grandpa-man who is trying to protect Frodo!
It's the same thing for me.. book versions are always better (way better) than film counterparts. I find it true for LOTR, Harry Potter, Insurgent, Hunger games, Da Vinci Code and Game of thrones (HBO TV series). Sometimes it's frustrating to watch the movie version if you already read the book version. Like what happened to me with Da Vinci Code.
You're definitely not the first person who disliked the books. I've heard people saying the books are completely overrated and such. I've seen all the movie adaptations but i didn't dare read the books because the size of the book intimidated me. LoL, i know it's lame excuse but it's the truth. I thought it's too long and maybe too wordy so i did not bother reading it. I however read The Hobbit which i enjoyed so much that i read it twice now.
Novels are great, as they usually are. However, I'd like to make an exception for LOTR. I understand all too well that three movies cannot accommodate each and every detail narrated in the books. That's why, if I were to consider the way in which the characters were portrayed by their respective actors, the accuracy of the visual depictions, the CGI effects and the overall vibe, I'd definitely say the LOTR movies did justice to their written counterparts. The next time I read the three books, I'd have stronger images in my head.
I can only go off the Hobbit for a comparison, but I will say I liked the book A LOT better. Like someone said above, there is just something about picturing everything in your head as your read. I did read the book before I saw the movies, so that might alter my view just a bit. I plan to do the reverse for LOTR books as I have already seen the movies. We will see how that impacts my reading experience.
