LOTR Books or LOTR Movies

[NAZGÛL]

L.A. Confidential was pretty different, too, actually. I far prefer the film to the book, which is rare for me.

I think the Shining and BR is superiour to the books.

 

[Angelus Lupus]

The solution is to do both and take away the parts from either that make you happiest or entertained.

Exactly! All you have to do is bifurcate your personal time-line along a space-time metric, θ, into two, congruent causalities: where θ1 experiences the film first and θ2 experiences the book. Then simply collapse the wave function of the split into a convergent continuum, θΣ, where both realities apply.

(there's more than one, Dr. Who reference in there :lol)

 

[Contec]

Why is Dumbledore in this movie? Is this a prequel about the time when he went around the world to find voldemort's horcruxes?

 

[Malphas]

I didn't read the books, I did the audio books instead. And I need to finish them. I believe it was around 56 hours of material so...

And I think watching the movie before is a good idea. If you like the setting the books add more to the world. Jurassic Park is a good example.

 

[Steamboat Spidey]

:lol
(message too short)

 

[Steamboat Spidey]

I didn't read the books, I did the audio books instead. And I need to finish them. I believe it was around 56 hours of material so...

And I think watching the movie before is a good idea. If you like the setting the books add more to the world. Jurassic Park is a good example.

Sounds like a great idea! I think I'll do that..... then see the movies after. Thanks for all of your suggestions!

 

[MaddMaxx82]

The movies were awesome, but it misses out on the allegorical content originally conveyed through the books. Tolkien had a life of knowledge about a great many things spiritual which, came out in his writing. Wether you read the books first, or watch the movies. This was a peice of literary history that everyone should experience.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

[canuckmuse]

The movies were awesome, but it misses out on the allegorical content originally conveyed through the books. Tolkien had a life of knowledge about a great many things spiritual which, came out in his writing. Wether you read the books first, or watch the movies. This was a peice of literary history that everyone should experience.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Tolkien apparently detested allegory.

My prof. in a course that covered some popular Western canonical books of fantasy argued that folks in the 60s started to see messages and maxims where they weren't directly intended.

I'd argue that viewers' or readers' seeing and making their own meaning is not only unavoidable but completely natural.

http://verdevivoverdechiaro.blogspot.ca/2008/03/tolkien-allegory-and-applicability.html?m=1

 

[Proper]

They made books out of those?

You must be very young. It's OK, it's not your fault.

The books were written in the 1930s and 1940s.

Read The Hobbit before seeing the movie if at all possible.

 

[MaddMaxx82]

Tolkien apparently detested allegory.

My prof. in a course that covered some popular Western canonical books of fantasy argued that folks in the 60s started to see messages and maxims where they weren't directly intended.

I'd argue that viewers' or readers' seeing and making their own meaning is not only unavoidable but completely natural.

http://verdevivoverdechiaro.blogspot.ca/2008/03/tolkien-allegory-and-applicability.html?m=1

I wish I could remember the source, but I once read an interview, with tolkien, where he expressed his views in the comparisons with his friend cs lewis style of writting. he mentions lewis style of direct and intentional allegory to convey a story through apologetics, where his own was a more reflective nature of his own spirituality. Unintentional at first but intentional after revision. Either way, it is very artfully done, in written form, with this theory in mind. Where a film adaption kind of takes this away, by showing all the imagery from an outsiders perspective. Both were great by the way.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jannix Quinn]

I always pictured Aragorn as something like Gregory Peck. When the movie came out, I was disappointed. All the other parts matched well though.

 

[Riceball]

I would see the movie first, I find that reading a book before a movie tends to spoil the movie for me. I keep on anticipating scenes and making comparisons between what I remember reading and what I'm seeing on screen. Reading the book afterwards, usually, helps flesh out the movie for me, allowing to get more details, details that weren't necessarily in the movie.

 

[canuckmuse]

I wish I could remember the source, but I once read an interview, with tolkien, where he expressed his views in the comparisons with his friend cs lewis style of writting. he mentions lewis style of direct and intentional allegory to convey a story through apologetics, where his own was a more reflective nature of his own spirituality. Unintentional at first but intentional after revision. Either way, it is very artfully done, in written form, with this theory in mind. Where a film adaption kind of takes this away, by showing all the imagery from an outsiders perspective. Both were great by the way.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

This is good to remember--that some's inclination is to see messages, signs, and symbols in literature whereas others prefer to appreciate the overt meaning of the author without trying to find its deeper meaning.

Our prof.'s analysis of the 60s deconstructionist movement told of his kith's desire to unzip all works with the understanding that authors just could not possibly be writing a story: some political message was being cleverly concealed from them and it was their duty to discover that meaning.

I find this discussion here and elsewhere interesting because most find Tolkien's works highly imaginative, even inspirational. Some have attempted to see messages where there might not be any intended--directly or indirectly. Others are critical of artists' (particularly Jackson et al.'s) presentation of the text as a visual medium.

Is this not all indicative of great works?

 

[Riceball]

This is good to remember--that some's inclination is to see messages, signs, and symbols in literature whereas others prefer to appreciate the overt meaning of the author without trying to find its deeper meaning.

Our prof.'s analysis of the 60s deconstructionist movement told of his kith's desire to unzip all works with the understanding that authors just could not possibly be writing a story: some political message was being cleverly concealed from them and it was their duty to discover that meaning.

I find this discussion here and elsewhere interesting because most find Tolkien's works highly imaginative, even inspirational. Some have attempted to see messages where there might not be any intended--directly or indirectly. Others are critical of artists' (particularly Jackson et al.'s) presentation of the text as a visual medium.

Is this not all indicative of great works?

I've always liked the quote attributed to Hemingway when asked about the meaning behind "The Old Man and the Sea" where he says that the old man is just an old man, the sea is just a sea, and the fish is just a fish. Sometimes there just isn't any deeper meaning behind a book, a work of art, or a film and what you see is what you get.

 

[canuckmuse]

I've always liked the quote attributed to Hemingway when asked about the meaning behind "The Old Man and the Sea" where he says that the old man is just an old man, the sea is just a sea, and the fish is just a fish. Sometimes there just isn't any deeper meaning behind a book, a work of art, or a film and what you see is what you get.

Indeed! A story is enough....

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Movies then books. I did the other way around and was sorely disappointed.

 

[timelordjedi777]

Personally I prefer the books, but the movies aren't bad.