LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[samwiselvr2008]

i started reading this, and it made me really mad! i know that i did not read the books before the movie, but to tell you the truth, i did not know that the books even exsisted! i saw the movie, and i loved it, so i read the books! this is the third time the i am reading the books since january or febuary (i did not see the movie untill the middle of january), and if you do not think that i am a pure tolkien fan, then ask the people that were in my class who got sick of me talking about lotR really fast, the people that were on the bus with me, who were so tired of me talking about lord of the rings that they almost killed me, and you can allso ask my familly, and every one that gose to my church! i believe that this is my third time reading the books, i have read them more then some of you! and if the movie had not ben made, then i would have missed out on a great adventure!

pluss...

if you read the letters of jrr tolkien, he writes in one of the letters that if any one ever made the movie then they could leave tom bombadill out of it!

[cassiopeia]

I think what annoys people the most is when people who have watched the movie and havn't read the books suddenly think there are experts on all things Middle Earth. I for one am happy that because of the movie more people are experiencing Tolkiens magical works. Bring on the TT and ROTK!

[Brokehorn4000]

Exactly! See, samwiselvr2008, those of us who are die-hard Tolkien fans can get annoyed by certain people who saw the movie and then think they know everything about Middle-Earth without reading the books at all. I wouldn't hold anything against you since you've read the books and seen the movie, or anyone else for that matter. And whoever hasn't read the books yet, I encourage you to read them. They are truly wonderful works of artistic literature!

[samwiselvr2008]

i'm glad that you agree, i just don't wont anyone to say that i'm not a true pure tolkien lover just b/c i did not know that the book was out there untill i saw the movie!

[Brokehorn4000]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
... i just don't wont anyone to say that i'm not a true pure tolkien lover just b/c i did not know that the book was out there untill i saw the movie!

Well that's why I wouldn't blame you. I bet a lot of people didn't know about them ( 'them' being the trilogy) before the movie came out. It didn't get much advertisement before (except on summer reading lists maybe ). So we shouldn't hold people accountable for that.

[Erendis]

I read the books after the movie came out but not after I saw the movie. You see...I never really saw the movie.
My parents gave me the books for Christmas and I tried to read them but couldn't get past the "A Shrotcut Through Mushrooms." So I put it back down and read sme other stuff. Then, this past April, I picked them up again and I thought they were fantastic. I finished LotR and Silmarillion in two and a half weeks. Two weeks later I read Unfinished Tales.
It kinda gets to me when people think they're experts just because they saw the movie. And espeically when all they do is go on and on about how hot they think Legolas is.
In my opinion, Tom is not relevant to the story of the ring. They really don't need him for anything outside the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns. The Hobbits got nothing from the excursion into the forest except for new swords. They weren't magically swords either. Just swords.

[IronParrot]

I watched Gone With The Wind before ever reading the Margaret Mitchell novel. I have yet to read Mario Puzo's The Godfather. And from my experience, that's not really "ignorance", that's just an appreciation of a story in one medium exclusive to the other. Similarly, you can appreciate Picasso's Guernica even if you've never read up on the Spanish Civil War.

My brother, my ten-year-old brother, saw the film of The Fellowship of the Ring before he ever sat down to read LOTR, which he did. I think the film's visual ideas helped him get through the work as easily as he did.

Also, the very first time I read LOTR, I only really retained about as much material as was worked into the movie. It took me many readings to really, really absorb the entire novel at the most detailed level.

Now I must refute this:

"In my opinion, Tom is not relevant to the story of the ring. They really don't need him for anything outside the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns. The Hobbits got nothing from the excursion into the forest except for new swords. They weren't magically swords either. Just swords."

While story-wise, Tom Bombadil was a sidetrack, and was certainly dispensable in the film (better no Bombadil than a poor rendition of one, I think, and I can't think of how they could have possibly done justice to him), he wasn't irrelevant. He demonstrated that the Ring only affects those with a desire for power. Living in carefree isolationism, he is symbolic of the fact that only complete neutrality is immune to the effects of the Ring, as through power, even good is drawn to evil.

As for the swords, I quote from V.6 ("The Battle of the Pelennor Fields")

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

[Erendis]

Living in carefree isolationism, he is symbolic of the fact that only complete neutrality is immune to the effects of the Ring, as through power, even good is drawn to evil.

I must admit, I never thought of that before however, I do agree with it.
Thank you for pointing that out to me IronParrot!

[GIR]

ok. i dont exactly say i love LOTR but i say i love the movie. would that make me ignorant??

[Rei]

No, your not ignrorant GIR, you just love a great movie!

[samwiselvr2008]

did you trie to read th book?

[StrawberryIcecream]

I dont like the hostility put towards people who only liked LOTR after the movie.

I read the hobbit years and years ago but every time i tried to read LOTR i just found it too hard to get into. However after seeing the movie i had an idea (even if not entirely accurate) of what was to come so i knew it was worth reading.

I dont claim to know everything about LOTR just because ive read the books and quite honestly i have no desire to. Im not rushing to read the Sil though, i mihgt if i have time one day but i enjoy just talking about what i do know.

I think its unfair to call those who have seen just the movie ignorant. if they pretend to know everything yes but they are allowwed to know everything about the film.

Some people may know every The Hulk cartood episode created, doesnt mean they need to watch the original films to have an understanding.

There is a reason why books are made into movies. Yes mainly money but also to make more people interested in that topic. So whybe hostile to those of us who were 'captured' into tolkien by the movie, just means we discovered it later not that we discovered it less.

[samwiselvr2008]

good! i like how you said that! i agree b/c i am one of those later ppl, even though i may not be as smart about it as the before ppl, i know that i have to be smarter then some of them are, just like everyone!

and i geuss that you are right that they can be experts on THE MOVIE even if they arn't on THE BOOK!

[Sylvee Estel]

Ok would ya'll hate me if I said I almost liked the movie better than the book? I read the first book before I saw the movie because one of my friends said I needed to to understand the movie. I thought the book was pretty good, but boring and confusing at some times, I guess cause I am not used to reading stuff written at a high reading level. I love reading but until I started getting in to fantasy which was after I read LOTR I couldn't find much at a high reading level. But anyway after the movie I read the other two books and now I have really gotten into fantasy which is a good thing. And I'm kinda bavvling a little bit but my point is, I think that if more people read the books because of the movie then thats a good thing, and if they like the movie better then thats cool too. Anything is better than nothing in my opinion. Ok sorry this doesn't make much sense, I'm not too good at putting my toughts into words. Anyways I hope this makes a little sense.

[samwiselvr2008]

its okay if you like the movie more! i liked the movie alot to, and probaly the onley reson why i think that the book is better is b/c

1. i love to read
2. it is written richly
and lastly
3. you can take a book more places then a movie theater, or a tv and vcr/ dvd player! plus, all of the books that i bought (well, the series anyways, and the hobbit) was less then the dvd was all together!

okay, so the last one was 2 resons in one, but, you get my point!

[Starr Polish]

Pulling a Gollum on us, are you, Samwiselvr2008?

[jerseydevil]

As I've said in many past threads on this topic - although I haven't been on this topic for months - I'll summarise.

I don't think Jackson did a great job making the books into a movie.
I would have dropped Tom Bombadil (but a better explanation for where the hobbits got their swords was needed, Aragorn just basically pulls them out of his back pocket in the movie).
The Flight to the Ford scene was ruined IMO.

I agree with Sween - I think the movie is more from the human point of view. Not completely - but more so than the books.

I don't look down on people that have only seen the movie - but you can't talk to them about LotR if that is the case. I tried to talk to a friend of mine about it who has never read the books. He kept insisting that Boromir SHOULD have been given the Ring because his plan might have worked (Jackson made Boromir too likable I think anyway). My friend also hated the hobbits and thought the movie should have been based around the men more.

I'll get the LotR DVD tomorrow or sometime this week - but it's still an action movie. The book was much more emotional. Jackson dumbed down the movie to make it appeal to a much wider audience.

I keep seeing the trailers for TT now and I start thinking I can't wait until the movie comes out - but then I have to remember how disappointed I was with the Fellowship of the Ring. I don't want to get my hopes up this time.

side note - I hate the fact that they show Gandalf in close up on the trailer. It ruins it for the people that haven't read LotR. Unless most people just think it's just an image or something.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Pulling a Gollum on us, are you, Samwiselvr2008?

well, i do quote him alot, but how was i doing it that last time? after all, it is myn, my own, it cam to me! my own, my love, my birthday present, my pressssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssiosssssssssssss ssssssssssssss!

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

side note - I hate the fact that they show Gandalf in close up on the trailer. It ruins it for the people that haven't read LotR. Unless most people just think it's just an image or something.

well, most of the people who are intristed enof to see the movie trailer (unless they saw it in theaters, and had know chouse) are usainly gonna know about gandalf anyways, because someone, or something told them (something as in a newspaper, internet ect.) and so it will not come as a serprise anyways! and i thought that he would come back even before i read the book, and had only seen the movie, because it just did not seem like ganalf could stay deid, so it is okay that they showed him! and even after i had read the book twise and then saw the trailer, i was wondering if the wizard was gandalf or sauramon!

so just give pj a break, he did the best job that he could! and imagine how hard it was for him to make humans act like and look like dwarves, elves, hobbits ect.! i bet that YOU could not do any better then he could! and imagine having to pick a place, write the script, and everything else for a 1008 page book! i wouldn't be able to! and i never found a lord of the rings movie that YOU made in the theaters or in the stores!

LAY OFF OF PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008

so just give pj a break, he did the best job that he could! and imagine how hard it was for him to make humans act like and look like dwarves, elves, hobbits ect.! i bet that YOU could not do any better then he could! and imagine having to pick a place, write the script, and everything else for a 1008 page book! i wouldn't be able to! and i never found a lord of the rings movie that YOU made in the theaters or in the stores!

LAY OFF OF PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?? just because you liked the movie doesn't mean that I did. I thought it was an okay movie. I'm not going to praise jackson just because he turned LotR into a movie. I think it could have been a lot better. I've said a bunch of gthings that I didn't like about the movie when it first came out. The two main problems I had - I hated Arwen being at the Ford and I hated Pippin and Merry. Pippin and Merry were my favorite characters in the book and he turned them into walking comic relief. He also made Frodo have 3 ridiculous "death" scenes.

You don't have to accept my opinion of the movie- but you should at least respect my opinion.

And just because I haven't made a LotR movie or any movie - doesn't mean I have to like it. Your argument makes no sense on why I shouldn't state my opinions or feelings concerning the movie. Do you like every movie that has ever come out????