Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[V-Adore]

YES! Tom Bombadil got the short end of it, and too bad. Because the Barrow-Wight would have been hella cool.

Ohhh, the Barrow-Wights. God, what we've missed... must.. not... fangirl...

No Bill Ferny in Bree, which would set up the scouring of the shire (which I doubt we see much of).

God, this is another point. They more or less seem to have not filmed anything that would be indicative of the Scouring making it in, which worries me very much. If they cut the Scouring, I will be forced to be very angry indeed, as it's one of my make-or-break marks for RotK (that and the Shelob fight).

[CortJstr]

I dunno how realistic the Shelob fight could be. I mean, I've written Elbereth under my chair at work plain as day but it doesn't seem to be keeping the evil away from me.

[jay-ell]

Pre-emptive strike, here (Just call me Mr. Bush) --

Please, no spoilers.  

I know, I know, anybody can read the book to find out what happens, and probably most of you have.  But I have been expressly forbidden (by my spouse) to read RoTK before seeing the film -- although I have read the first two books so I know about Shelob, etc.  So if you'd like to discuss the finer points of the storyline before the film comes out, please do the lesser geeks a favor and use white text (so that readers have to highlight the text in order to be able to read it).  It's been OK so far, since we've all been speaking in generalities, but let's avoid getting too specific for the sake of us geeks who are putting off the third book until after the movie.  

Yes,  I'm being nitpicky.  Thanks for humoring me.

[AugustWest]

I think you should read the book before the movie.  Before, Before, Before.  Otherwise your internal imagery is tainted by the movie (not that it's bad at all, but part of the point of reading a book is to create your own vision of the characters and events.)  If you see the movie first what you imagine in you head when you read will belong more to Peter Jackson that to sweet 'lil J.L.D.

The book should be canonical, not the movie.

[CortJstr]

This is one of the few times I agree with the imagery-tainting argument. These movies have been faithful enough that it's a danger but with most movies they're so far removed from the book that the tainting just doesn't work for me.

When I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep I couldn't picture Harrison Ford if I wanted to. And Dune? Well, maybe the worms, but just a little.

[jay-ell]

I've not had my imaging tainted thus far.  I read FoTR and TTT after seeing both movies, and I still can't picture the real Frodo as looking anything like Elijah Wood (although Sean Astin does make a wonderful Sam).   I'm pretty good at separating film from print, and my imagination is vivid enough not to be bothered by someone else's notions of what is and isn't.  I can certainly appreciate that other people have trouble letting go of imagery from a film when they tackle the book on which it's based, but I am blessed (??) with the kind of brain that completely forgets the entire moviegoing experience somewhere between the ending credits and the parking lot.  (Which is maybe why I re-watch the same movies over and over...)  But if I read about it, I'll never forget.  So I can watch the movie and still be surprised by the ending of the book.  

Thanks for the concern, tho...you guys are sweet

[V-Adore]

I still can't picture the real Frodo as looking anything like Elijah Wood (although Sean Astin does make a wonderful Sam).

I always pictured Frodo as staring into space a lot less than Elijah Wood does, personally.

That said, I'm cool with going spoiler-free. Most of the specific stuff we've mentioned in the thread anyway have been events from FotR that didn't make the cut into film, but I'm still fine with whiting out RotK spoilers.

Like the chapter where it turns out that Rosebud was Sauron's sled all along and then everyone dies.

(Edit: It appears that -- by my monitor, anyway -- whiting text doesn't perfectly spoiler-proof it. Ah, well.)

[AlohaDawg]

I still say read the book first. Every movie that I have seen where I read the book first made the movie a much more interesting experience. (Even the bad film addaptations were more interesting.) I totally agree with the notion that the book should be canonical. A movie can complement a book but never, ever the other way around.

How did you possibly avoid reading these books? I think I've read them all the way through at least 3 times plus the Silmarillion. I've had them since the late 70s. Easily the oldest, most dogeared and well loved paperbacks I own.

[AugustWest]

I have to agree about Sean Astin.  He nailed Sam.

[AlohaDawg]

I have to agree about Sean Astin.  He nailed Sam.

I heard he got Pat's brother-in-law too.

<snicker>

[jough]

I completely disagree with those who say to read the book first.

The book is going to be more in-depth, contain more scenes (usually) that may not be in the film, and will fill in and enrich the film if read following.

If you read the book first you tend to spend the film comparing it with the book, expecting certain scenes to come up, finding yourself disappointed that they left out your favourite ancillary character, etc.

By viewing the film "fresh" you can enjoy the movie, and then deepen your appreciation for the material with the book.

I have found several times that having read the book first had ruined the movie for me, but never have felt the inverse - that viewing a film had ruined the book.  And I often will read a book after having seen the film.

I remember sneaking into "Misery" after having read the book and being highly disappointed with the film, even though Kathy Bates looked pretty much like I imagined the character (even if Caan didn't) because a few things (minor things - it was a fairly complete adaptation) were different, didn't play out like I thought they should, etc.

Sometimes I wish I had never heard of Shakespeare before seeing Olivier's "Hamlet" for the first time.

Speaking of, I also am a firm believer of VIEWING plays of Shakespeare before you read them as text - which is of course their intention.  They were meant to be seen performed.

I'm starting to think the same of novels.

But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.

[jay-ell]

How did you possibly avoid reading these books? I think I've read them all the way through at least 3 times plus the Silmarillion. I've had them since the late 70s. Easily the oldest, most dogeared and well loved paperbacks I own.

That's how.  I was born in the late seventies, remember?  I read The Hobbit twice for school and once on my own, but I've spent the vast majority of my life as a full-time student, which leaves precious little time for pleasure reading.  

Incidentally, I have a list of books a mile long that I'll be diving into wholeheartedly after December 20.  Ah, the sweet, sweet freedom of voluntary unemployment...

[AlohaDawg]

Interestingly, I disagree (with Jough above) for some of the same reasons:

I think literature outstrips film mankinds great art; the imagination will never be fully capturable on film and certainly no film can hope to fill everyone's vision. The book, on the other hand, allows you complete reign to imagine, and that is more powerful.

I love movies and I even love television - I think that good writing is of paramount importance for both - I prefer to experience the writing first and then see what kind of vision a filmmaker had of the story.

A good book I can make mine.
A film always belongs to the filmmaker.

[AugustWest]

But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.

I believe the thermos to be mankind's greatest acheivement.

[CortJstr]

But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.

I believe the thermos to be mankind's greatest acheivement.

People you're beliefs are way off on this subject. I have but two words for you: blow jobs