Should movie fans read the books?

[Dúnedain]

This thread is a joke too. It was only sparked on the fact that BB hasn't read the books (are we even sure he hasn't?). Again, even with every comment about "those who like the books" it seems like THOSE OF US WHO DO LIKE BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE MOVIES, are so easily forgotten and sh1t on. This thread is made out and sounds like if you liked the books you should hate the movies.

I guess those of us are loved the books and then liked the movies are nothing but movie lovers who "may have read the books" or "didn't read the books correctly"

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
This thread is a joke too. It was only sparked on the fact that BB hasn't read the books (are we even sure he hasn't?). Again, even with every comment about "those who like the books" it seems like THOSE OF US WHO DO LIKE BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE MOVIES, are so easily forgotten and ***** on. This thread is made out and sounds like if you liked the books you should hate the movies.

I guess those of us are loved the books and then liked the movies are nothing but movie lovers who "may have read the books" or "didn't read the books correctly"

The opening sentence of this thread is indeed MUCH more provacative than the thread you started which was closed, IMO. In fact, I read yours as concilliatory - and had been thinking for some time to start a similar thread entitled "Gimme a Break!"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
This thread is a joke too. It was only sparked on the fact that BB hasn't read the books (are we even sure he hasn't?). Again, even with every comment about "those who like the books" it seems like THOSE OF US WHO DO LIKE BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE MOVIES, are so easily forgotten and sh1t on. This thread is made out and sounds like if you liked the books you should hate the movies.

That's fine if you think that way. But i have repeatedly talked to people who like both the movie and the books - but they can at least accept the fact that Jackson didn't do a perfect job. If you think he did a perfect job - that is your opinion.

As for BB reading the books - I have asked him repeatedly. He constantly tries to post quotes or things that happened in the books and repeatedly gets things wrong. No he has NOT read the books.

I guess those of us are loved the books and then liked the movies are nothing but movie lovers who "may have read the books" or "didn't read the books correctly"

if that's what you want to think. But that was NOT what this thread was about it. It's about whether movie fans who have NOT read the books can make statements such as "no one could have done it better than jackson", "jackson captured middle earth and the characters perfectly", "Jackson is pure genius"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
The opening sentence of this thread is indeed MUCH more provacative than the thread you started which was closed, IMO. In fact, I read yours as concilliatory - and had been thinking for some time to start a similar thread entitled "Gimme a Break!"

BB hasn't read the books. or at the very least - he can't remember anythign from them. That is a fact. Yet post after post from him is about jackson being pure genius and how he improved on the books.

If you have problem with the thread - then take it up with the admins. It is you guys who keep making inflamitory comments.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's about whether movie fans who have NOT read the books can make statements such as "no one could have done it better than jackson", "jackson captured middle earth and the characters perfectly", "Jackson is pure genius"

The first two statements no (stands to reason). The last statement yes (open to opinion).

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Should movie fans read the books?

EVERYONE should read the books.

absolutely.

In response to your original question, JD: yes, anyone who sees the movie and likes the movie should read the books. I read the books, loved them... went out and read The Sil... read them all again and again... saw the movies and was like... ???? eh? ???? Why would anyone sink this much money into a movie adaptation of a great work of literature and then mess it up so badly? What was he thinking?

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
. . .
Q1. Do you think that for a person to really discuss the quality of the movies and what jackson did that they should have also read the books?

Q2. Is it enough to really judge these films without having read the books?

. . .

Q3. How can someone judge the quality of Jackson's interpretation of books without having read them.

A1.
A person does not need to read the book to discuss the quality of a movie.

If they want to intelligently discuss about what the movie did with regards to the book,
then I say yes they should read the book and be familiar with the book.

A2.
If you wish to judge how the films were as an adaptation of the book, you need to read the book.
If you wish to judge how the films were as a movie entity only, then you do not need to read the books.
Reading the books may/may not assist in judging the film from a purely cinematic/movie point of view.
(for example: the ents in TT. From the movies only, the Ents appear to be inconsistent. They state that they are not hasty, yet they wind up making a hasty decision.
From the books we know the Ents will attack Isengard and why they will attack Isengard.)

Q3. They are psychic or talk to psychic friends.
Otherwise I do not know.

[bropous]

Yes.

[How's that for non-confrontational?]

[Elfhelm]

Should people read Phillip K. Dick's books before they say that Bladerunner is one of the best science fiction movies of all time? Will these people read Timeline before judging the movie?

What's good for Tolkien should be good for PKD or Crichton. But someone who hasn't read PKD just says, it's not the same... and that's fine because Tolkien is... what... some sort of superhuman writer who... no no no... To try to use reason to understand this is a waste of time.

May I ask another fool question? Should you read The Once and Future King before watching Camelot? Have you? Do you really think Tolkien is so much better than T.H. White that he should get special treatment?

Or are you just making life (and reading books) easier for yourself by holding JRRT up as the ultimate writer so you don't have to read these other people? Because if you would make the effort to read these other authors you might realize that they are all brilliant writers, too.

But I don't think a person should have to read any book in relation to any movie. Myself, I almost always read the books first.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Should people read Phillip K. Dick's books before they say that Bladerunner is one of the best science fiction movies of all time? Will these people read Timeline before judging the movie?

What's good for Tolkien should be good for PKD or Crichton. But someone who hasn't read PKD just says, it's not the same... and that's fine because Tolkien is... what... some sort of superhuman writer who... no no no... To try to use reason to understand this is a waste of time.

May I ask another fool question? Should you read The Once and Future King before watching Camelot? Have you? Do you really think Tolkien is so much better than T.H. White that he should get special treatment?

Or are you just making life (and reading books) easier for yourself by holding JRRT up as the ultimate writer so you don't have to read these other people? Because if you would make the effort to read these other authors you might realize that they are all brilliant writers, too.

But I don't think a person should have to read any book in relation to any movie. Myself, I almost always read the books first.

I think what you say is a fair statement. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. (sp?)

It is a bit sad what happened to PKD. At least his family will be able to enjoy some of the fruits of his labor.

I have read T.H. White (school assignment) and I have not seen Camelot.

If someone wishes to intelligently discuss how well a movie is adapted from a book they should read the book (and of course see the movie ) in question.

To decide if a movie is good or not, one does not need to read the book.

[zinnite]

Well, reading PKD should be required by law

I agree with Elfhelm--no one "should" have to read the book, or any book that has been the basis for a film. It's still possible to discuss and judge the qualities of a film because a film is not a book.

Now, if one wants to judge the interpretation of a film, then obviously one needs to do some reading. However, I don't feel the quality of interpretation has anything to do with the quality of the film itself. Plenty of bad films have faithfully interpreted the source material, and plenty of great movies have very little resemblance to it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
May I ask another fool question? Should you read The Once and Future King before watching Camelot? Have you? Do you really think Tolkien is so much better than T.H. White that he should get special treatment?

Or are you just making life (and reading books) easier for yourself by holding JRRT up as the ultimate writer so you don't have to read these other people? Because if you would make the effort to read these other authors you might realize that they are all brilliant writers, too.

On the contrary - I have read T.H. White's Once and Future and I hate that book. That is my opinion of course. Ijust don't like that vesion of King Authur.

Yes their are other great authors out there. But the books and movies you mentioned - all have different tittles. Unlike Lord of the Rings - which Jackson kept the title. A more appropriate title for the movies would probably have been "The King's Destiny" or even "War of the Ring" because all of the lore that Lord of the Rings contained has been lost in the action sequences.

My comment regarding should someone read the books anyway - deals strickly with them making comments on the adaptation from books to movie and whether they could have been better. My feeling is they could have been a thousand times better and closer to the books and still have been blockbusters. I also think without many of the changes jackson made - they would truly have been deserving of the best picture nomenation. As they stand they are purely action flicks (and yes - I have said it again)., but even Primetime called them action movies.

By the way - on a closed the thread you asked for a better fantasy film and that would be Excalibur. It isn't dumbed down for the audience. It doesn't have cheap laughs, it doesn't have endless action. And I have read Mort d'Arthur which the movie is based on.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
...But I don't think a person should have to read any book in relation to any movie. Myself, I almost always read the books first.

It depends on what you are saying here. If someone who has read the books and criticizes the movie for falling way off the original course of the story, they shouldn't have to run against someone who has never read the books but loves the movies.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could NOT have read JRRT. I read The Hobbit in high school (or 8th grade, not sure), and then FotR the year after. They were required reading, and I'm grateful for that. The first exposure to JRRT's beautiful words transported me to his world and made me hunger for more. (Though, it is apparent that that is not so for everyone.)

I think you also need to remember that this is a Tolkien message board. Not a Michael Crichton message board. (However, Timeline is on my list to read.)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by zinnite
...I agree with Elfhelm--no one "should" have to read the book, or any book that has been the basis for a film. It's still possible to discuss and judge the qualities of a film because a film is not a book.

Technical qualities such as cinematography, and special effects, but not the adaptation of the literary work to the big screen.

Now, if one wants to judge the interpretation of a film, then obviously one needs to do some reading.

agreed.

[Goldberry1]

it's clear that if you want to intelligently be able to look at the movies as adaptations, you need to have read the books. and if your simply looking at them as movies... you need no background with the novels to form an opinion.

_____________________________
Originally posted by jerseydevil

This is about whether movie fans can really appreciate and understand Middle Earth without having read the books.
_____________________________

hmm, well, they'll get a nice feel for it. and i'm sure people have been spurred to read the books after seeing the movies... *including myself.* i saw FOTR when it was released and then picked up the books and had finished them by the summer before TTT. my opinion wasn't entirely changed after reading LOTR... i see i love the books, but the movies aren't entirely bad either, in my opinion.

i feel you just get so much more detail and involvement when you sit down and read a novel rather than just watch a movie based on it.

so to sum it all up... yes, movie fans should go out, buy the books, sit down and read them (if they haven't already). you get a better feel for the story as a whole, and you're able to discuss the movies looking at them on several different levels.

i think this is one of the longest posts i've ever made...