Insteresting speculation

[Churl]

Here’s an interesting question for all of us who have read The Lord of the Rings before seeing the movies.

Do you think you would enjoy the movies more if you had never read the book beforehand?

Please note that I’m not asking “which is the better sequence to maximize enjoyment of the book?” Obviously you would want to read it first, get the real story, bask in Tolkien’s language, form your own mental images, and only then come here to gripe and nitpick after seeing the films. :)  That’s not my question, though.  I’m just asking whether or not you would have enjoyed the films more if you weren’t familiar with the book.

When you consider the dissatisfaction you feel when the films “get something wrong,” it’s easy to answer “yes” immediately.

But try to imagine all you’d be missing: the thrill you feel when they get things absolutely right … when someone delivers a line right out of the book, exactly as it should be delivered … familiarity with the geography of who’s where at any given time … all the references (Valinor, the White Tower of Ecthelion etc.) which would seem vague or inexplicable without prior knowledge of the book … much more.

On the other hand, though, it’s telling to note that some of the films’ harshest critics (ahem, you know who you are) are we who love the book most.  Everyone else — professional critics and general moviegoers alike — seem to be utterly blown away by the films.  So, sheerly for the purpose of enjoying the movies, maybe it’s better not to have read the book first.  (Again, I’d never recommend this because of the effect it would have on your first reading, but remember the question.)

For myself, despite the occasional frustrations, I still believe that reading the the book beforehand has allowed me to enjoy the movies more.  Of course, despite my attempt to stay objective, my answer might be tainted by knowing how priceless that first read is …

What do you think?

P.S.  Try to keep this thread free of spoilers for the Two Towers film … there’s already a thread (jerseydevil’s What people think of Two Towers (*SPOILERS*) (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6443)) for specific raves and gripes about it.

[Beleg Strongbow]

Wow. That's a hard one. But I have to say that... for maximum enjoyment of the movies... see the movie first.

I read the book first (of course) and I was all psyched and hyped up, expecting something truly awesome... and it was... just a movie. The letdown was the worst part.

[Katt_knome_hobbit]

You'd like it more if you saw the movies and then read the books because you wouldn't be so dissapointed.

[Khamûl]

Probably. If you haven't read the books, you don't know how the story is supposed to go. Therefore, you can't rant and rave about how Peter Jackson changed this or should have left that alone. Fellowship of the Ring blew me away, but I probably would have enjoyed TTT more if I hadn't read the book. I still loved TTT, but that's beside the point.:D

[Blackboar]

I agree with you all!

[LuthienTinuviel]

haha hindsight is a wonderful thing, no?

i would say see the movie(s) first, because they are some darn good movies reguardless of what PJ left out or left in. soo seeing a great movie, or movies, first- then reading an even better and far superior book would be better than going thru all the heartache of seeing your favourite parts left out (or in some cases left in):D

[Falagar]

Agreed. I'd enjoyed the movie much more if I hadn't read the book first, but I wouldn't have changed. The movie still rocks, but it doesn't come close to the book. Nothing will. Ever.

[Artanis]

Answer to Churl's question: Definately not. For me to watch the films (both FotR and TTT) without having read the books would be as watching rather ordinary fantasy action films with some great CGI's. Now when I have read the books, the films become so much more. Only because I have read the books (and not only LotR) I know the full meaning of what it is for an Elf to sail over sea. I know what Gandalf, Sarumann and the Balrog really are. When Arwen mentiones the Valar, I know who and what they are. I know the story connected to Sting and the mithril coat that Bilbo gave to Frodo. The references that are given, familiar names that triggers associations. To name a few examples. It greatly enhances my joy of the film. That's me. :)

[sun-star]

I agree with Artanis: definitely not. I saw FOTR before I read the book, and TT after, and I would certainly have preferred to have read the books first. I didn't really understand FOTR - I didn't know what an Elf or a hobbit was, I didn't know the significance of anything that was happening, I didn't even understand what was happening some of the time (esp. at Rivendell). I couldn't tell the characters apart... you get the picture. The thing is, it made me want to know, so I went to the books. Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but you get the depth of the story far, far more if you know even a tiny bit of the history, and for me, that's more enjoyable.

[Churl]

Artanis wrote:Only because I have read the books (and not only LotR) I know the full meaning of what it is for an Elf to sail over sea. I know what Gandalf, Sarumann and the Balrog really are. When Arwen mentiones the Valar, I know who and what they are. I know the story connected to Sting and the mithril coat that Bilbo gave to Frodo. The references that are given, familiar names that triggers associations.Thank you, Artanis … you expressed what I was trying to say, but you said it much more clearly, succinctly, and with better examples. :)

I agree: the films' Middle-earth would not have seemed nearly as grand and complex if I hadn't read the book (and the appendices, and The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales, and countless articles and Entmoot posts:)) first.

As readers, we have the luxury of knowing the full enormity of Arda's geography and history.  No matter how amazing the movies are — and I am amazed by them, warts and all — they can only scratch the surface of what was essentially Tolkien's life work.  In contrast, familiarity with the source can lead to frustration when the films deviate, but it can also "fill in the blanks" in our minds.

In that sense, readers of the book bring to the theater a mental "special effect" more vast and convincing than any computer or modeler could ever create.

[IronParrot]

Look:

With both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, I liked the film better the second time, because I wasn't paying so much attention to all the differences from book and film, and I was fully absorbed by the visual and emotional power of the film itself.

But I would never, ever claim that I would enjoy the films more if I hadn't read the book beforehand. I think the reservations upon the first viewing are just a hump to get over.

If I had never read the book, I wouldn't have been so delighted to see Legolas and Gimli's "headcount" (which a lot of people seemed to think was a Hollywoodish addition!).

If I had never read the book, I wouldn't have as refined a sense of geography of all the locations relative to each other. Let's face it, Lawrence of Arabia is easier to absorb if you know where Aqaba and Damascus and the Suez Canal are on the map. It's no different here, having a mental sense of where all the characters are going in the grand scheme of things.

If I had never read the book, I wouldn't have been so overjoyed - practically to tears - at Frodo and Sam's dialogue in the last scene, as they speak of how people will be telling the tale of Frodo and the Ring.

Knowledge of the source material can be a double-edged sword. Anyone who's taken even the most basic Roman history knows that Maximus Decimus Meridius didn't exist, and that Commodus reigned for a good twelve years after Marcus Aurelius before his assassination. Yet these are the same people who pick up on all the details of culture, design, costuming, and morality in Gladiator. (Which, although I loved it, The Lord of the Rings puts to utter shame.)

Sure, I notice all the liberties and "inaccuracies" - but at the same time, I notice all the little tributary nuances that make the film not just great, but wonderful.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by Falagar
Agreed. I'd enjoyed the movie much more if I hadn't read the book first, but I wouldn't have changed. The movie still rocks, but it doesn't come close to the book. Nothing will. Ever.

Originally posted by IronParrot With both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, I liked the film better the second time, because I wasn't paying so much attention to all the differences from book and film, and I was fully absorbed by the visual and emotional power of the film itself.

Defiently. The Movie in no way compares to the book, but I would have enjoyed the movie more without reading the books first. I got so lost in the FotR and TTT movies.

[IronParrot]

"The Movie in no way compares to the book, but I would have enjoyed the movie more without reading the books first. I got so lost in the FotR and TTT movies."
Um, the point of the passage of mine you quoted was that despite the fact that I enjoyed it more the second time, I couldn't possibly imagine enjoying it as much as I did if I hadn't read the book first.

[Lollypopgurl]

Hmm....

I read the books first. Well...kinda. I read them after I saw a trailer of FotR and remembered that book in the library. I saw the movie after I fininshed the book.

Does that count?:)

Anyways, yeah, I probably would have enjoyed the movie better if I had never heard about the books before going to the movies.

I prefer the books even now, but I haven't even seen TT yet.

[IronParrot]

For my part, I fail to see how this is at all a matter of "preference". That one work is a pinnacle in the realm of literature doesn't mean that the other can't be a peak of the realm of cinema, and that's how I see them both - two towers, if you will. :p

[cassiopeia]

Do you think you would enjoy the movies more if you had never read the book beforehand?

No, I don't think so. As Churl says, I enjoyed the thrill of the dialogue from the book, characters being exactly how I imagined them to be and the little parts which only people who had read the book would know of (Fatty Bolger, Bilbo's trolls for example). I probably wouldn't have seen the film if it wasn't called The Lord of the Rings. I agree with IP - the book is my favorite book and the film (FOTR, havn't seen TTT yet) is my favorite film. I can't separate them, because they are different mediums. I would say that if I had to choose one of them, I would choose the book.

[Artanis]

Luckily we don't have to choose. I totally agree with IronParrot concerning first and subsequent viewing of the movies. The more I see and think of PJ's work, the more I appreciate it. Now I think the books enhances the joy of the movie, and vice versa. But I'm glad I read the books first.