So I see a typical Yahoo Answers question - "should I read the book or go to the movie" but this time the question is concerning J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings series.
To my extreme surprise, and dismay, many people answer 50/50 or just go to the movies. JUST GO TO THE MOVIES!??
The Lord of the Rings has had a profound and wide-ranging impact on popular culture starting in the 1960s and 1970s and lasting until today. Thins is almost a 50 year span and young people still embraced it as a countercultural saga.
Its influence has been vastly extended in the present day. Many still utter the phrases "Frodo Lives!" and "Gandalf for President". They books have permeated modern culture with endless rock songs, follow up books, a sting of movies (other that Jackson's), Monopoly games, the entire Dungeons an Dragons phenomena, and so on, and so on.
2007-07-10 07:47:24 · 17 answers · asked by Ralph 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
While other authors such as William Morris, George MacDonald, Lord Dunsany, James Branch Cabell, Robert E. Howard and E. R. Eddison published fantasy works before Tolkien, the great success and enduring influence of his works have led to him being popularly identified as the "father of modern fantasy literature".
So, now I’ve had my vent for the week. Why would anyone say - just go to the movie?
2007-07-10 07:47:37 · update #1
The movies can in no way be compared to the books. Now dont get me wrong I LOVED the movies! But the books surpass them by 1000%!!
I have read the books 3 times and they just keep getting better and better!
I am also just compltetly amazed on how deep, creative, and talented Tolkien is! I cant think of any other authors who created an entire WORLD! launguges and all!
2007-07-10 08:13:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you 100%. I also read a ton of answers about LOTR where all the answerer seems to care about is how "hot" the actors in the film are!
I liked the films, though I was severely disappointed in The Two Towers. But there is sooo much that would be very boring to convey on screen that you get out of the books! Books are a far richer tapestry! In the hands of a fantastic author, an entire world can come to life in a way a movie can only hope at! Movies don't fully allow you acess to the characters thoughts and dreams. The books truly make these characters three dimensional and as a result they leap off the page!!
I don't know how anyone who has read the books and seen the films can even think it's a close race! The books leave the movies in the dust!
2007-07-10 08:09:49 · answer #2 · answered by tnk3181979 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in case you had asked for a assessment between LOTR and *all* of C.S. Lewis's artwork, i'd have had a extra durable time right here. yet evaluating LOTR with The Chronicles of Narnia - friendly as diverse the Narnia memories are, no longer all of them are on a similar high-quality point as, say, The Lion, the Witch and the cloth cabinet. The Lord of the rings is between the top fiction works ever. Tolkien created new worlds, new species, new languages - even new alphabets - and wove them right into a attractive, compelling tale. the tale of the fellowship, the hunt, the annoying circumstances, the return of an prolonged-forgotten king, the downfall of evil forces -- all superb. What I rather like approximately this artwork is it incredibly is deals with the heroic in mankind - what we are able to be. LOTR is a appropriate accomplishment, devoid of peer. large question!
2016-09-29 11:13:45 · answer #3 · answered by pihl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you. I first stumbled across the trilogy the summer of my 14th year and proceeded to read it again every summer for the next 10 years (and once or thrice since then!) Of course I read the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Smith of Wooten Major, Farmer Giles of Ham, and even some of his translations of Medieval literature such as Sir Gawain and the Green Night and The Pearl.
That said, the movies were fabulous! They were so well done and so true to the books! It was like Jackson was in my head as he created this movie . . . Gandalf was exactly as I always pictured him; though the Ents were a little F/X-y, they were still good; But the Elves . . . the beauty, power and je-ne-sais-quoi of the elves was so totally brought to life in the movies . . .
To sum up . . . I would have to say: Read the books, fall in love with the characters, and then see the movies.
2007-07-10 08:06:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
When it comes to The Lord of the Rings, I say, read the books and avoid those terrible movies (setting and special effects do not make a movie).
When it comes to the Harry Potter books, I think you are better off with the movies, because they do a good job of editing Rowling's larger books. For example, I hated book 4 because it was so painfully written and drawn out, but the film did a great job of taking the same basic story and trimming out the nonsense.
2007-07-10 09:20:44 · answer #5 · answered by God_Lives_Underwater 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
unfortunatley, we live in the society of instant gratification, and even a three hour movie is too long for many people.
not that I'm defending them. I must be honest though-- with Lord of the Rings, I saw the movies first. My mother owned copies of the books, and I tried to read them a few times, but the language seemed beyond my 10 year old mind. I ended up reading them at 13, after seeing the movies a few times over and adoring them. The visual refrence of the movies helped me a whole bunch.
But... most people are just lazy, and can't commit to something as long-term as reading a trilogy, when they can just pull out a DVD.
2007-07-10 08:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by ☂ammy 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Rant away. I totally agree. Books give added depth to the movies. I say see the movie but only AFTER you have read the book. I personally enjoy the world I create with my mind when I read and then I look forward to see the perspective of someone else when I go to the movie but honestly the movie in my mind is always better ;)
2007-07-10 08:00:28 · answer #7 · answered by fisherworld75 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Agrees, I think those people need to read the books again... how could they HONESTLY think the movies should be "just seen" and the books not read... They may have done a good job compared to some books turned into movies, but it still isn't as good, or as thorough. Not to mention some other things...(by the way, I said they should read the books).
2007-07-10 07:59:04 · answer #8 · answered by istillcandream 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As "The Lord of the Rings" was released in July and November of 1954 (Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers) and October of 1955 (Return of the King), I'd say the impact on popular colture started earlier than the '60s and '70s.
2007-07-10 08:12:28 · answer #9 · answered by knight1192a 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The books are undoubtedly better but the movie takes less time. If you just want to get the basic story down in the smallest amount of time the movie is the better option. If you really want to understand everything about the trilogy you have to read it.
2007-07-10 07:59:05 · answer #10 · answered by Matt3471 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋