Lord of the Rings for a newcomer: The book or the movie

[The Pale King]

OK. I have somehow gone without seeing or reading Lord of the Rings, but as of now, taking advantage of the increased free time I'll have for a period now that midterms are over, I intend to change that. But one problem remains. I can't decide whether to start with the books or the movies. I intend to read/watch both at some point but I can't decide which one to go into first. Which one would be best for a newcomer?

[DraPrime]

Books. They are the source material. You should always start with the source material.

[CDR_Doom]

Book. x1000. The movies are great, they are enjoyable and true to the spirit of the books, but because of the time limitations in the film medium the only way to get the full and complete story is to read the book.

Also, if you see the movie first you'll never get a picture of the characters in your mind as Tolkien wrote them, you'll see Elijah Wood, et. al. :smalltongue:

[The_JJ]

Start with the Hobbit, then LOTR, then the movies, then the Simarillion.

[The Pale King]

I remember being bored by the Hobbit. It was what turned me off reading the series sooner. But I was pretty young when I read it so I think I would like it if I gave it another chance.

[Ozreth]

Books will be the answer to this question regarding any material %99 of the time.

And yeah start with the Hobbit, you will be grateful for it.

The movies are great but it is much harder to read through a book when you know what each new page holds.

[Hawkeye]

Book first without a doubt (if you've got lots of time to kill), the movie was Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book, it just doesn't measure up at the end of the day.

Although there's some parts in the book that are just worth being skipped over (Tom Bombadil *shudder*)

[zeratul]

Book first without a doubt (if you've got lots of time to kill), the movie was Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book, it just doesn't measure up at the end of the day.

Although there's some parts in the book that are just worth being skipped over (Tom Bombadil *shudder*)

Tom Bobadil is awesome dude, I honestly do not understand the backlash he's gotten in recent years. Nothing wrong with a little mirth in an otherwise serious story 'eh? He's just this minor hilarious and yet godlike character, which makes for an interesting little segway. The Barrow Downs were also good character development.

[PhoeKun]

Although there's some parts in the book that are just worth being skipped over (Tom Bombadil *shudder*)

Boo hiss. I shall hear no bashing of Tom Bombadil, sir. He represents a wonderful bit of world building, and a bridge between the fantasies of adventuring, and the reality of it. What is there to hate?

edit: I would echo the opinions showing through so far. The books are a more enjoyable experience than the movies (which are also an enjoyable experience), and a prior reading of The Hobbit will add a lot to any reading of The Fellowship of the Rings (and naturally, the rest of the series).

[Thrawn183]

I'd go with the movies. I never could really get a picture in my mind of what things actually looked like from the books.

The movies also do a better job with things like frightening enemies. You actually see characters cower in fear, I didn't feel like that came through as well in the books.

[Dienekes]

Books, but be warned the prose is amazing, I've heard because of this it can be a harder read.

@Hawkeye, do not insult the Bombadil.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I must second The_JJ's suggestion. Start with The Hobbit, then read The Lord of the Rings, then see the movies, and if you wanna continue the Tolkien experience, then pick up The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion. Be warned, though, that those books are dramatically different in style than The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

The Hobbit feels slightly more like a fairy-tale. It's more light-hearted and whimsical. The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion, however, are much more like reading an ancient Greek epic, or maybe The Bible, and there's definitely much more tragedy in there. The Lord of the Rings seems to occupy a kind of middle-ground between the two extremes. While the characters suffer more than in The Hobbit, there's always the hope that things will turn out alright in the end, unlike the more mythic books, where it's pretty much a guarantee that the ending will be very bittersweet at best, if not downright depressing (The Silmarillion is actually a collection of stories, rather than a singular narrative like the others, so there are several endings in it).

[Elfin]

The books, all the way; while the movies are, for the most part, true to the books, the books are the real deal.

But, echoing the sentiments expressed above, I'd highly recommend reading The Hobbit before either.

Oh, and afterward don't forget the Silmarillion. While some find it not to their liking, it's still worth the read.
Personally, it's by far my favorite of Tolkien's works.

[Solaris]

Depends on who this newcomer is. If they like to read and enjoy over-long, dry prose, then the books. If they don't, the movies.
What can I say? I'm not a fan of the LotR books.

[Elfin]

Tolkien's prose, dull? The books are stuffed with lengths of writing bursting to the seams with fabulous description. And, even though you didn't mention it, the poetry is first-class as well.

But each to their own, I suppose.

[Kneenibble]

Thank you, Elvenblade.

I chalk the frequent accusations against Tolkien's writing up to slow readers, or readers who don't actually like to read. Or, if I can be so perfectly bold, people who lack imagination, but I don't direct that indictment to anyone in the thread.

The same with the accusations against Robert Jordan's writing, as it happens.

Edit Please read the books first. Gather an imagining of the world for yourself which grows out of the text, because otherwise Peter Jackson's representation will supplant your own forever.

Postpostscript Actually maybe I take that back. I know only people who read the books from childhood and then saw the movie, or saw the movie but have and will never read the books.

I'd be really interested to hear the account of one who saw the movies, and then read the books. Everyone who reads first knows what got left out and where the narrative focus differed, but it would be interesting to hear a person interpret the differences from the other end.

[Ozreth]

Tom Bombadil was great. I was super sad when he wasn't in the movie.

[Mythestopheles]

It really depends. I for one, really liked the books. If you enjoy reading, you wont be dissapointed. However if you're not like that, this probably isn't a good place to start.

That aside, generally I would recomend the books first. They have so much more... And as Ozreth said, Tom Bombadil.

[Kjata]

Thank you, Elvenblade.

I chalk the frequent accusations against Tolkien's writing up to slow readers, or readers who don't actually like to read. Or, if I can be so perfectly bold, people who lack imagination, but I don't direct that indictment to anyone in the thread.

The same with the accusations against Robert Jordan's writing, as it happens.

I am neither a slow reader or someone who dislikes reading. I will read a 600 page book in 4 days if it is interesting, and love every minute of it. However, I cannot stand Tolkien's writing prose. As someone on another forum once said, reading Tolkien is like reading the Bible. I can read the Bible somewhat because I am a Christian, but I cannot stand Tolkien. One of the worst parts is the poetry, I was extremely thankful the movie left it out. And I gave it an honest try, I read all of the Fellowship and about half of Two Towers before giving it up.

Anyway, I suggest watching the movies and forgetting about the books. The movies are phenomenal.

@Kneebibble: I read the Hobbit, and loved it, didn't read any other books until after I saw the Fellowship.

[Elfin]

Thank you, Elvenblade.

I chalk the frequent accusations against Tolkien's writing up to slow readers, or readers who don't actually like to read. Or, if I can be so perfectly bold, people who lack imagination, but I don't direct that indictment to anyone in the thread.

The same with the accusations against Robert Jordan's writing, as it happens.


While this is probably true in some cases, I wouldn't be nearly so harsh.
It really is just a matter of taste. Many people can't stand Tolkien's writing; many others, myself included, love it.
I think the real mark of his success is that even those who don't like his writing are still enthralled by his stories.

[Kneenibble]

I am neither a slow reader or someone who dislikes reading.

There was a third option. :smalltongue:

Naw, naw, I'm not trying to bitch out anybody who doesn't like Lord of the Rings -- taste is taste -- only those who imply that it's bad writing.

[Dallas-Dakota]

If you don't like the prose,
then go learn dutch.
Read it in dutch.

I've found that the translator(s) did a dang good job. The prose is slightly more readable/easy to read yet still maintains form and other things.

It might be because I've already read the books a dozen times in dutch, or watched the movies a hundred times, but I just already know pretty much what's going to happen, so that's what making it hard to y'know, read it in english.

Mr. Tweety: Have you ever read The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun?
It's a bit different since there are some notes which clear things up, but the prose and the poems, seems like something you'd read.

Also, what everybody else said about Tom to Hawkeye: He's a wonderfull lighthearted character, while myself, I most likely couldn't write Tom-ish characters with a good feel, but dang, it's a good character and a good part of the story.

[JonestheSpy]

Books, please, the books.

One suggestion if you start off with The Hobbit, as you really should: The large illustrated version with stills from the Rankin and Bass animated movie is pretty cool. Even if you don't like the actual movie, as many don't, they did a great job with a lot of the art - Smaug is a masterpiece, and they did very well with the spiders, dwarves, Gandalf, etc. My vision of Bilbo is still heavily influenced by the movie, I must admit.

I don't know if it's still in print, but I see copies pop up in used bookstores and he like fairly often.

One other suggestion if you're feeling brave - read the Hobbit, then the Silmarillion, then Lord of the Rings. I always thought it would be pretty amazing that way - read the ancient mythology of the world, then see how the stories are still playing out thousands of years later - you'd have a much greater grasp of the context surrounding all te events in LotR. Tough going though, no doubt, the Silmarillion is written if very archaic, formal prose. (My wife read it in that order, says it was awesome - it also makes LotR seem like a breeze to get through in comparison).

[Icewalker]

My opinion is that you should read the books, or try to, before seeing the movies. However, I will say that I partially agree with those here who don't like them.

No, that's not true, I don't agree with them, I just didn't like the books for completely different reasons (I quite like Tolkein's prose, and Tom Bombadil is awesome). And I should say book, seeing as it's The Two Towers that I've been stopped by twice now, attempting to read the series. The writing is fine, but the story in Two Towers consists about 50% of a couple people, walking. The movies are good, but they don't compare to the books when it comes to the detail.

I should try again, I never did get past Two Towers, and I really want to read the third book in its original writing and full story. I do love Tolkein's world building.

[TheSummoner]

Wow... I'm almost afraid of backlash, but... Movies.

I read The Hobbit and loved it. I tried reading LotR, made it through the first two books and gave up ... They just seem to go on and on with nothing happening for the longest stretches of time... I couldn't stand it. That... and the singing. *visible shudder*

[skywalker]

I must second The_JJ's suggestion. Start with The Hobbit, then read The Lord of the Rings, then see the movies, and if you wanna continue the Tolkien experience, then pick up The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion. Be warned, though, that those books are dramatically different in style than The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

The Hobbit feels slightly more like a fairy-tale. It's more light-hearted and whimsical. The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion, however, are much more like reading an ancient Greek epic, or maybe The Bible, and there's definitely much more tragedy in there. The Lord of the Rings seems to occupy a kind of middle-ground between the two extremes. While the characters suffer more than in The Hobbit, there's always the hope that things will turn out alright in the end, unlike the more mythic books, where it's pretty much a guarantee that the ending will be very bittersweet at best, if not downright depressing (The Silmarillion is actually a collection of stories, rather than a singular narrative like the others, so there are several endings in it).

This is because The Hobbit was written for children, and is the story of a hobbit. The Lord of the Rings, and I know I'll take flak for it, is in my opinion the story of a man (Aragorn) more than the story of a hobbit, despite the fact that Frodo is the most important character. It was also written, some believe, to replace Arthur with a more "British" mythology. I don't set much store by the other two, since they were rather unfinished when he died, altho I did read and enjoy The Silmarillion.


Postpostscript Actually maybe I take that back. I know only people who read the books from childhood and then saw the movie, or saw the movie but have and will never read the books.

I'd be really interested to hear the account of one who saw the movies, and then read the books. Everyone who reads first knows what got left out and where the narrative focus differed, but it would be interesting to hear a person interpret the differences from the other end.

I can kinda answer this, I guess? I was in middle school when the trilogy began, realized these great movies were coming out that it would be impossible to avoid (note that I was almost entirely a sci-fi nut at the time) and that I'd better read these books to bone up on what was going on. Well, of course they were slow going, so I'd only read half of the first book before I went to see the corresponding movie, and not very well, to tell the truth. Upon exiting the theater, I declared "that was awesome" and immediately set to finishing the book I had started and the 2 sequels.

In this way, I had basically the whole first movie in my head before I read them. While it might have affected me a bit to have images of what the various characters looked like, mostly I found myself imagining new images more in line with what the book said. About the only way I can definitively say seeing the movie first negatively affected my experience was in that it puts a very defined face and form on Sauron. I think I lost a lot of the "mysterious dread" the book had working for Sauron in this way.

I recommend reading the books first, tho. Otherwise, well, as others have said, depending on what you like to read, it might not be too enjoyable, and if you've seen the movie, it will just read like a bad adaptation. You will be trying to struggle thru the books all the while remembering the "ooh shiny" of the film. Video is naturally a more engrossing format. I cannot speak from the perspective of someone who doesn't love his writing style, however. I'm all about myths man.

EDIT:
No, that's not true, I don't agree with them, I just didn't like the books for completely different reasons (I quite like Tolkein's prose, and Tom Bombadil is awesome). And I should say book, seeing as it's The Two Towers that I've been stopped by twice now, attempting to read the series. The writing is fine, but the story in Two Towers consists about 50% of a couple people, walking. The movies are good, but they don't compare to the books when it comes to the detail

I can't stand the Frodo/Sam half of that novel. It's ridiculously dull, especially compared to the other half.

[Mystic Muse]

I haven't read all the books But I very much liked the first one. Yes, even Tom Bombadil.

I already know I'm going to be murdered for even saying this but the Hobbit was boring It never felt like anything was happening in it. Also, Gandalf was a bit too much of a Deus ex machina in that book. I know he's a maia and all but still. It got dull

I may give it a re-read though just to make sure. This time I'll skip the yawn inducing part about the forest with the spiders though.

[Lord of the Helms]

I would actually say that you should probably either read the books or watch the movies, or perhaps read the books after watching the movies, but don't read the books and then watch the movies, because my experience watching the movies when knowing the books was that they fell so very, very, terribly short in comparison that I could not enjoy them at all. Without the books, they may make for a relatively decent standard poporn flick, if a rather long one.

[factotum]

Tolkien's prose, dull? The books are stuffed with lengths of writing bursting to the seams with fabulous description. And, even though you didn't mention it, the poetry is first-class as well.


I would have to agree. Somehow, the CGI-fest of the movies never managed convey the ancient grandeur of the Argonath in the same way that a single paragraph of book description did, and the death scene shortly thereafter of a certain major character (name not given for spoiler's sake) was intensely moving in the book. In the film, you were just saying, "DIE already!" after the fourth or fifth exchange...

[Totally Guy]

I can't read war stories. I don't understand war scenes and I could not understand what was going on during those scenes in Return of the King.

If I'd watched the movies first I would probably had enough of an idea what was going on to understand the book and fill in the gaps.

One of my players in the gaming group got very angry at me (well, sort of, not to my face but on his blog) about how dare I attempt to GM a game without ever finishing Lord of The Rings. The playground agreed with my friend.

[skywalker]

I can't read war stories. I don't understand war scenes and I could not understand what was going on during those scenes in Return of the King.

If I'd watched the movies first I would probably had enough of an idea what was going on to understand the book and fill in the gaps.

One of my players in the gaming group got very angry at me (well, sort of, not to my face but on his blog) about how dare I attempt to GM a game without ever finishing Lord of The Rings. The playground agreed with my friend.

Damn, that's pretty harsh of the playground and your friend, IMO. It's one of those things where if nobody had told him, he probably never would've known. I've always thought those battle scenes aren't really supposed to be understood. You're supposed to catch the glory of the whole thing, the action is really secondary.

[Totally Guy]

Damn, that's pretty harsh of the playground and your friend, IMO.

I exaggerate. I think the general consensus was "be sensible" or "case by case" blah-de-blah. But I wanted unanimous support so I didn't get what I wanted.:smalltongue:

[Optimystik]

Tom Bobadil is awesome dude, I honestly do not understand the backlash he's gotten in recent years. Nothing wrong with a little mirth in an otherwise serious story 'eh? He's just this minor hilarious and yet godlike character, which makes for an interesting little segway. The Barrow Downs were also good character development.

I liken him to Harry Potter's Peeves. Amusing diversion, not really relevant to the narrative, easily dropped from the film. I read LotR long before I read HP, though.

[Prime32]

That, and he damages the image of the Ring by being some random guy it has no power over.

Tolkien even said that he would have deleted Bombadil from the story if editing were easier at the time.

[WalkingTarget]

That, and he damages the image of the Ring by being some random guy it has no power over.

Tolkien even said that he would have deleted Bombadil from the story if editing were easier at the time.

I've never heard the latter anywhere before. On the contrary, in one of his letters he said "...he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

Your former comment is, in my mind, precisely why he's in there. From another letter: "But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..." He represents the limits of the Ring's power. This foreshadows something from RotK (spoilering for the OP's benefit).

That's partly why Sam is able to resist it. He's not as far removed from desire as Tom is, but his wants and dreams are so minor in the grand scheme of things that he recognizes that the Ring's temptations are lies and resists them almost instantly.

[Kaiyanwang]

I've never heard the latter anywhere before. On the contrary, in one of his letters he said "...he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

Your former comment is, in my mind, precisely why he's in there. From another letter: "But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..." He represents the limits of the Ring's power. This foreshadows something from RotK (spoilering for the OP's benefit).

That's partly why Sam is able to resist it. He's not as far removed from desire as Tom is, but his wants and dreams are so minor in the grand scheme of things that he recognizes that the Ring's temptations are lies and resists them almost instantly.

Well, well, well, well said.

BTW, I second what JJ suggested. And watch out, Silmarillion is different.

[endoperez]

If you don't like the prose,
then go learn dutch.
Read it in dutch.

I've found that the translator(s) did a dang good job. The prose is slightly more readable/easy to read yet still maintains form and other things.

It might be because I've already read the books a dozen times in dutch, or watched the movies a hundred times, but I just already know pretty much what's going to happen, so that's what making it hard to y'know, read it in english.

I have the exact same experience, except with the Finnish translation. And I haven't read the books a dozen times, so it's not that I'm overly familiar with them. The poems, especially, were great. The Last March of the Ents doesn't come near the epic feeling of the Finnish translation... but that's probably just me. Lieskat lyövät, kaiken syövät! Sotaan! Sotaan!

I think Tolkien's writing is very "heavy", perhaps more so in the original than in the translations - or perhaps it just demands things non-native readers don't often have. Any way, I could never finish the English version, and I didn't enjoy it anywhere as much as the translation. The books have some of my favourite scenes in the trilogy, so you should really try them, but if you think you can't stand reading them, I suggest watching the movies first, or even instead. Even if you don't read the rest of the books, do yourself a favor and read at least the last few chapters from the Return of the King. At least you'd get the original ending. Oh, how they've grown... :smallbiggrin:

[Ichneumon]

Go for the movies. I hated the books.

[sun_tzu]

Honestly, it depends on the person. Most people here clearly prefer the books.
I'd go with the movies all the way. Despite loving the Hobbit, I couldn't finish the LOTR books. I tried twice, and both times I had to give up long before the end, because they bored me out of my skull.

[jlvm4]

OK. I have somehow gone without seeing or reading Lord of the Rings, but as of now, taking advantage of the increased free time I'll have for a period now that midterms are over, I intend to change that. But one problem remains. I can't decide whether to start with the books or the movies. I intend to read/watch both at some point but I can't decide which one to go into first. Which one would be best for a newcomer?

Definately the book. The movies changed quite a bit, and in some cases it really changed some of the over-arching themes of the work. I loved the book. I really liked the movies, but some of the changes really did irk me. So read to get the idea of what Tolkein wanted, then watch and see what Hollywood did with it. Not sure if you tried it the other way around, you'd follow through with the reading part.

[Prime32]

Honestly, it depends on the person. Most people here clearly prefer the books.
I'd go with the movies all the way. Despite loving the Hobbit, I couldn't finish the LOTR books. I tried twice, and both times I had to give up long before the end, because they bored me out of my skull.Heavy reading, sure, but they're worth sticking with even if it gets hard at times.

That said, the movies were an excellent adaptation. (mind, the previous attempts had bizarre animation and Aragorn saving Middle-Earth by killing Sauron)

[WalkingTarget]

Honestly, it depends on the person.

It occurs to me that I didn't actually give any advice to the OP in my last post, but this statement by sun_tzu is appropriate. I, as is probably obvious, prefer the book, but even I had to take 2 tries to get through it the first time (at the age of 14 I barely got through the first volume and I didn't come back for a few years) and I recognize that Tolkien's writing style is love it or hate it.

The thing I'd warn a newcomer about the movies is that they do a pretty good job of conveying the overall, bare-bones plot of the book, but lose a lot of subtlety and complexity in the process. A lot of this is necessary for the translation to film, but for a lot of us that complexity and depth is a large part of why we like the book so much. If you're one who enjoys digging into how things work beyond what's just on the surface, the books might be for you. If not, well, there are other things that might draw you to the book over the films too, but it's one of the more prominent differences in my mind beyond the purely cosmetic.

[Prime32]

Some of the biggest changes in the films concern Saruman.

In the books he wanted the One Ring to fight Sauron, but was really being manipulated by the Dark Lord to make it easier for him to get the Ring himself.

In the movies he's just working for Sauron.

There was a scene in the books where Merry and Pippin are captured by a mixed group of orcs who argue on whether they are being brought to Mordor or Isengard, resulting in Saruman's Uruk-hai killing Sauron's goblins. In the movies the argument is about whether or not to eat them.

And then there's Saruman's ending, which is really different even if it's the same person to kill him in the end.
The place of Saruman's death in the books is the Shire.

[Zanaril]

Read the books first.

While they're not page turners, if you can read them without expecting it to be easy, you'll enjoy it. And I echo the comment that it's worth reading the books for the poetry alone. Try to read them for the prose itself rather than to get them over and done with; it's easy enough to pick up and read a few pages every now and then.

[FirebirdFlying]

Try the books, then, if you can't/don't want to finish them, go see the movies. Then you can try the books again if you so desire.

I don't believe Tolkien is a particularly good writer*, but he is a wonderful world-builder, and neither his writing nor world building come through quite as strongly in the movies. If you read the books with a different mindset than you would read - oh, more recent fantasy, it works better. Reading the Silm as a history text of sorts made it much easier for me when I was younger. (I haven't read the whole thing for a while now).

*I don't like Hemingway. I think the Painted Veil is terrible. As is the Octopus. I'm quite fond of Shakespeare, and don't understand what's so hard to understand about most of it. You may attempt to draw your own conclusions as to whether I'm a slow reader/don't like to read. (Actually, don't draw your own conclusions about the latter, I love to read).

[Debihuman]

The books and the movies won't give you the same story. I could live without Tom Bombadil but the Scouring of the Shire (the second to last chapter) is one of the best chapters in the book and it's missing from the movie.

Yes, some of Tolkien's prose is dry, but since you read quickly that shouldn't be a problem. I definitely recommend reading the book (plus you'll have access to the appendices at the back which I found invaluable when I couldn't remember some detail or another).

The Hobbit is a quick read and rather amusing. The Rank and Bass cartoon version was quite faithful. The poetry in the Hobbit has a lot of humor. The Hobbit really does set the background for The Lord of the Rings but it has a different point of view.

Also, if you read the books first, you'll be able to tell how well Peter Jackson captured the vision of the Shire and the various places. It will give you a better appreciation of the movie from that perspective.

Debby

[Weezer]

I agree with the people saying Hobbit then books then movies then (if you feel up to it) the Silmarillion.

I'll never understand the people who find LotR to be boring, all the description that people complain about serves to make Middle Earth seem truly real, to be more than mere words on a page. Though I will agree that the Sam/Frodo parts of the second two books did drag on a bit but I don't really see what else he could've done, it was a interminable representation of an interminable and tiring journey.

But I don't understand most peoples taste so each to his own I suppose.

[Optimystik]

Your former comment is, in my mind, precisely why he's in there. From another letter: "But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..." He represents the limits of the Ring's power. This foreshadows something from RotK (spoilering for the OP's benefit).

That's partly why Sam is able to resist it. He's not as far removed from desire as Tom is, but his wants and dreams are so minor in the grand scheme of things that he recognizes that the Ring's temptations are lies and resists them almost instantly.

Being an ascetic is great and all, but pretty damn useless if it means you can't carry the thing to Mordor in lieu of all the impressionable mortals.

I'm sorry - I thought Bombadil was awesome at the Barrows and that tree, but the instant I realized he'd vanished from the story I was intensely disillusioned.

I have much more respect for the Ents, and even they made me facepalm at times.

[Zen Monkey]

I recommend the movies. The books could be more of a "if you like the story, here is some further reading you might like."

If I met Tolkien, I might ask him what he's making for dinner. In response, he'd give me two hours of history about the fork he's using. That's how I always saw his writing, but these things are often subjective and there is no 'right' opinion.

[Totally Guy]

Though I will agree that the Sam/Frodo parts of the second two books did drag on a bit but I don't really see what else he could've done, it was a interminable representation of an interminable and tiring journey.

That was the best bit, I got through that entire second half in a day.

When it got back to Aragorn and the dirty great war, I just couldn't figure out who was doing what or even what the sides were all aiming for. So that's where I stopped.

"What if they know?"
"What if they know we know?"
"But maybe they know, we know, they know?"
"Well then they'd have planned that we'd know that much."
"But what if they were counting on us using that against them?"

That might have not happened in the book, but that's what happened in my head.

[WalkingTarget]

Being an ascetic is great and all, but pretty damn useless if it means you can't carry the thing to Mordor in lieu of all the impressionable mortals.

Useless, yeah, pretty much. That's why they don't entrust the Ring to him for safekeeping. He might be the last one to hold out against Sauron after he conquers everybody else, but he's incapable of winning a confrontation with him. Bombadil is on the sidelines, he's a non-combatant, a conscientious objector, and in order for the pacifists to exist there must be those who are willing to fight on their behalf. Again, that's the point.

[Optimystik]

Useless, yeah, pretty much. That's why they don't entrust the Ring to him for safekeeping. He might be the last one to hold out against Sauron after he conquers everybody else, but he's incapable of winning a confrontation with him. Bombadil is on the sidelines, he's a non-combatant, a conscientious objector, and in order for the pacifists to exist there must be those who are willing to fight on their behalf. Again, that's the point.

What is the point of being a "non-combatant" or a "conscientious objector" in a world-spanning conflict? One that will pull you in anyway if you don't do anything?

Consider Avatar - which for the sake of brevity, I will use in lieu of the many previous works it ripped off - when the chips were down,
the entire planet had to get involved in the war, despite never intervening before that
- there are times when you have to pick a side.

And if he's powerless (and therefore, useless) outside of his woods... then what is his purpose in the narrative? To which I answer - he has none - hence, he is able to be omitted from the movie with nary a ripple.

[Prime32]

If I met Tolkien, I might ask him what he's making for dinner. In response, he'd give me two hours of history about the fork he's using. That's how I always saw his writing, but these things are often subjective and there is no 'right' opinion.Tolkien came up with a language first, and then created the elves to speak it. He has a rather unorthodox approach.

[warty goblin]

I always figured Bombadil was an idealized case, how the world should be and probably was before Melkor ruined it. Of course he's useless in the grand struggle, because he isn't really part of the world that does things like that.

[WalkingTarget]

What is the point of being a "non-combatant" or a "conscientious objector" in a world-spanning conflict? One that will pull you in anyway if you don't do anything?

[snip]

And if he's powerless (and therefore, useless) outside of his woods... then what is his purpose in the narrative? To which I answer - he has none - hence, he is able to be omitted from the movie with nary a ripple.

His purpose is to illustrate the point. In the first letter I quoted earlier Tolkien also said that Tom wasn't important to the narrative, the commentary on the nature of "power" and "desire" is the reason he's there. You're right, he can be removed from the film because the film doesn't delve into these philosophical avenues of discussion. Hence my comments on the reduction on complexity and depth.


I always figured Bombadil was an idealized case, how the world should be and probably was before Melkor ruined it. Of course he's useless in the grand struggle, because he isn't really part of the world that does things like that.

I hadn't thought of that interpretation. I'm not sure that I can completely agree, but it's at least interesting to think about. :smallsmile:

[Optimystik]

His purpose is to illustrate the point. In the first letter I quoted earlier Tolkien also said that Tom wasn't important to the narrative, the commentary on the nature of "power" and "desire" is the reason he's there. You're right, he can be removed from the film because the film doesn't delve into these philosophical avenues of discussion. Hence my comments on the reduction on complexity and depth.

If that is the case, I consider that reduction to be "streamlining."

While I too prefer the book, nebulous philosophy that needs external material to fully understand (letters, Silmarillion etc.) is not one of the reasons. A book should be able to stand on its own; and while LotR does do that, Bombadil didn't really contribute in any meaningful way.

YMMV, of course.

[skywalker]

I recommend the movies. The books could be more of a "if you like the story, here is some further reading you might like."

If I met Tolkien, I might ask him what he's making for dinner. In response, he'd give me two hours of history about the fork he's using. That's how I always saw his writing, but these things are often subjective and there is no 'right' opinion.

Only if the fork were the epic fork of Gilgamesh or some business. For instance, Gimli's axe was only ever an axe.

[WalkingTarget]

If that is the case, I consider that reduction to be "streamlining."

While I too prefer the book, nebulous philosophy that needs external material to fully understand (letters, Silmarillion etc.) is not one of the reasons. A book should be able to stand on its own; and while LotR does do that, Bombadil didn't really contribute in any meaningful way.

YMMV, of course.

YMMV indeed. :smallsmile:

I had pretty much come to these conclusions on Tom before reading the letters or even the Silmarillion, just being able to point to Word of God somewhere to say that this was as intended is handy in discussions. I agree that him being left out of the films was a good move given the stylistic direction they were going in general (much like the elimination of most of the songs and poetry), I just don't see him as a problem in the book. :smalltongue:

[zeratul]

I'd recommend that after you finish all the books, you should also check out the posthumously released book "Children of Hurin", which takes place during the time of the silmarilion and thus before The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The writing is great, and it's a wonderful tragic story. If you have a low threshhold for depressing books it might not be for you though.

[Tirian]

At least try to read the books first.(*) Before the movies came out, I know quite a few people who never made it through The Fellowship of the Ring, which doesn't always seem to know where it's going and is certainly not in a hurry to let the reader know about it. Like you can tell from this thread, that's still bacon-wrapped chocolate to people who really like JRRT, but not so much for people who aren't sold yet. So if you get stalled in Fellowship, then watch the movie and I think that will be enough of a hook to finish reading the book. By contrast, the last two books are strong enough that you can keep reading them on your own, in my experience.

And then watch the movies. It's interesting to see how Peter Jackson distilled all of that story into ten hours of well-made movies, but you also want to watch it knowing just how much he left out. Everyone here is making a big deal about Tom Bombadil. To me, the horror of the movie is that he turned Gimli from one of the epic characters into comic relief just because you need comic relief in an American action movie. That's the cost, you've got a book series with a dozen strong characters and you just can't focus on all of them in a movie without derailing the plot. So LOTR is and should always be about the books.

(*) I couldn't care less whether you read The Hobbit first or not. It's a children's story, like saying that you need to be familiar with a work of the weight of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz before tackling Dune. All you need to know from The Hobbit is that the old hobbit in the first chapter won a ring of invisibility from a goblin-like guy at one point and he still has it.

[JonestheSpy]

I can't read war stories. I don't understand war scenes and I could not understand what was going on during those scenes in Return of the King.

If I'd watched the movies first I would probably had enough of an idea what was going on to understand the book and fill in the gaps.


Actually you wouldn't, because the battle scenes in the RotK movie are nothing like what happened in the book at all.

[Hazkali]

Certainly read The Hobbit. Yes, you can read The Lord of the Rings without reading it, but The Hobbit is equal if not superior to LotR. That it's a childrens book is neither here nor there; there are plenty of "grown up" books that are drivel.

[Dacia Brabant]

I'd recommend reading the books first, but then I'm a big fan of the Professor's work (and at the same time tend not to like Peter Jackson's directorial methods) so am therefore probably biased. But if you think you'd be at all interested in myth-making as a type of literature, you should definitely read the Lord of the Rings as it's pretty much the definitive 20th Century example of this idea.


As for Bombadil, I like WalkingTarget's explanation a lot, but I still tend to think he's a representation of God/Eru Iluvatar and for the argument that just because God exists doesn't mean he's going to fix our problems for us. This is reinforced by Goldberry's response to Frodo's question of who Tom Bombadil is: "He is." Look up ego eimi on Wikipedia if you want to know what that signifies.

[Thrawn183]

When I think about it it's a question of balance.

On one hand, the movies had the rediculous scenes with Legolas and they had to cut out the cleansing of the Shire due to length. The first I can fault them for, the second was just a factor of having a movie that can only be so long.

The books had Sam and Frodo being emo little *******.

That might be why I like the first movie and book so much, in addition to the second movie.

[factotum]

That, and he damages the image of the Ring by being some random guy it has no power over.


See, that's the movie talking. Peter Jackson and his co-writers had this bizarre idea that the Ring was so powerful in its corrupting influence that it would take over pretty much anybody if they so much as touched it, which is NOT how it works in the books. The Ring of the books is much more subtle than that; it would take a long time to corrupt somebody if they weren't particularly open to its call (e.g. did not desire power). This is why Frodo managed to get the thing to Mordor in the first place; it's why book-Faramir was able to say "If I found this thing by the side of the road I would leave it there." It's why Bombadil essentially ignored it. Conversely, it's why Boromir fell under its influence so quickly--he desired its power; he told himself it was to protect his home, and perhaps at first that's what it would have been, but it wouldn't have ended there.

I really don't understand why that concept was so hard to grasp for the writers of the movie, but c'est la vie.

[Lupy]

The Lord of the Rings is like the base of the fantastic pyramid of modern literature, huge, beautiful in it's own right, and essential for everything added to the pyramid later.

[Horrorshow]

The books, of course. Although I disagree with the dogmatic, "books are always better than movies," maxim. It's possible for a story to be better suited to film than literature.

That said, the LotR works much better as literature. The sheer depth and richness of Middle-Earth simply can not, and is not, captured within the films. If reading high quality if thick prose strung with old school poetry isn't for you, that's fine, just realize that Peter Jackson's films are not LotR. They're good adaptations of LotR, perhaps the best given Hollywood tendencies regarding film making, but a lot of material is lost. I did enjoy the movies, but the books are just so much more epic.

As for Tom Bombadil, he's definitely a polarizing figure. I, however, enjoy his presence. Tolkien was of the opinion that some factors of a story should not be explained to death, and simply left mysterious (the shadowy tree-giant Sam's cousin spots in the Shire and the cryptic skeleton in the paths of the dead are other examples). I feel this gives any story a more grounded feel. Sometimes things just remain unknown.

Bombadil also serves as some sort of living avatar for the rustic English countryside - as a representative of the natural world, he can not and will not participate in any sort of conflict. Maybe he should have, like the Ents did (who are not trees, by the way, despite how the movies depict them), but that doesn't mean he has to for the narrative to flow smoothly and make sense.

Finally, Bombadil serves as the savior figure in the repeated "departure, danger, flight, rescue" motif for the hobbits in LotR, much like Elrond and Gandalf at the end of Book I.

And oh yeah, start with The Hobbit.

[Irbis]

Actually you wouldn't, because the battle scenes in the RotK movie are nothing like what happened in the book at all.

Oh?

Which ones, for example? :smallconfused:

[Horrorshow]

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is very different. The Rammas Echor (a giant wall surrounding the grounds of the city) is completely omitted, the only enemy to even set foot in Minas Tirith itself (ever) is the Witch King (the Rohirrim arrive and distract everyone when he does), and the Army of the Dead never even show up. They scare away the pirates at Umbar so Aragorn and the Grey Company (another omission) can steal the boats with no trouble and pick up reserves from the fiefdoms of Gondor.

The Black Gate is different as well - two mounds of good guys consist of everyone in the film as well as the Grey Company, the Sons of Elrond, Prince Imrahil, and Beregond (all of whom play important roles at Pelennor as well). Merry remains at Minas Tirith to heal, while Pippin gains a level in badass when he single-handedly kills a troll.

I'm sure there are more superficial differences but those are the ones worth mentioning.

[Starbuck_II]

I say the Hobbit movie then the rest of the books. I perfer the movie to the book.

[JonestheSpy]

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is very different. The Rammas Echor (a giant wall surrounding the grounds of the city) is completely omitted, the only enemy to even set foot in Minas Tirith itself (ever) is the Witch King (the Rohirrim arrive and distract everyone when he does), and the Army of the Dead never even show up. They scare away the pirates at Umbar so Aragorn and the Grey Company (another omission) can steal the boats with no trouble and pick up reserves from the fiefdoms of Gondor.

The Black Gate is different as well - two mounds of good guys consist of everyone in the film as well as the Grey Company, the Sons of Elrond, Prince Imrahil, and Beregond (all of whom play important roles at Pelennor as well). Merry remains at Minas Tirith to heal, while Pippin gains a level in badass when he single-handedly kills a troll.

I'm sure there are more superficial differences but those are the ones worth mentioning.

I'd also add that it's a pretty big deal that the forces of Gondor attack from the city to join Rohan - in the movie Rohan does all the fighting until Aragorn shows up with his Smart Bomb to end the battle (which is one of the things that just ruins the movie for me).

Really, the battles in the movie are nothing like those described in the books, except for one or two specific incidents. In the book, you really get a feel for the shape of the battles, the movement back and forth, the swings from elation to despair and back again. The movie just has unconnected action scenes that go on until an arbitrary event ends each fight.

[Horrorshow]

^This, and the fact that Shelob isn't even in RotK, only TT.

And that's not even getting into the differences that aren't battle scenes...

[zeratul]

I'd also add that it's a pretty big deal that the forces of Gondor attack from the city to join Rohan - in the movie Rohan does all the fighting until Aragorn shows up with his Smart Bomb to end the battle (which is one of the things that just ruins the movie for me).

Really, the battles in the movie are nothing like those described in the books, except for one or two specific incidents. In the book, you really get a feel for the shape of the battles, the movement back and forth, the swings from elation to despair and back again. The movie just has unconnected action scenes that go on until an arbitrary event ends each fight.

And the stuff they did to the battle of helms deep was even worse than that stuff. There are no elves at the battle of helmes deep in the book, Eomer is there the whole time, as are most of the rohirrim, although at the end Gandalf brings about 1000 more cavalry. The whole elf thing just boggles my mind, I mean it was cool in the movie but it was so extremely far off from what actually happened.

[Green Bean]

I recommend watching the movies first, for two reasons. First, I personally enjoyed the movies more. The books were alright, and from a literary standpoint incredibly important. But, reading it was a chore for me. I just couldn't read it more than ten minutes before getting the urge to put it down and do something else, which is not normal for me. The movies were a lot more engaging, and certainly more entertaining.

Secondly, and less subjectively, watching the movies will likely take less time.

[warty goblin]

^This, and the fact that Shelob isn't even in RotK, only TT.

Although I don't think one can really get that upset about that. LoTR is really one ginormous book that happened to be published in three parts. Where a particular event falls in that division is basically arbitrary.

[Horrorshow]

To zeratul:

Yes, Helm's Deep was worse. The elves being present at all was an unabashed attempt at preteen boy fight-scene fanservice, and probably the worst part of any of the films.

To WartyGoblin:

True enough, but I still think Shelob could have been in the TT film. Jackson's reason for Faramir's (huge) character derailment was that Frodo and Sam had no action sequences in TT. I think if Faramir remained accurate, Gollum's treachery was sped up, and the Shelob fight included as a climax, it would have been more than action-packed enough while also remaining accurate to the source material.


(How does one quote another poster, by the way? I'm new here.)

[Reverent-One]

To zeratul:

Yes, Helm's Deep was worse. The elves being present at all was an unabashed attempt at preteen boy fight-scene fanservice

And to show that the elves aren't just all running away across the sea and are fighting in this war as well.


To WartyGoblin:

True enough, but I still think Shelob could have been in the TT film. Jackson's reason for Faramir's (huge) character derailment was that Frodo and Sam had no action sequences in TT. I think if Faramir remained accurate, Gollum's treachery was sped up, and the Shelob fight included as a climax, it would have been more than action-packed enough while also remaining accurate to the source material.

Which would have thrown off the timing, as the movies were showing what all the seperate groups were doing at the same time. That's why Shelob got pushed off.

[warty goblin]

To zeratul:

Yes, Helm's Deep was worse. The elves being present at all was an unabashed attempt at preteen boy fight-scene fanservice, and probably the worst part of any of the films.

I never particularly objected to the Elves at Helm's Deep personally. I can certainly understand the writer's decision to sub Eomer into Erkenbrand's role, and it actually keeps the Elves in the scene, and actually useful in the middle movie.


To WartyGoblin:

True enough, but I still think Shelob could have been in the TT film. Jackson's reason for Faramir's (huge) character derailment was that Frodo and Sam had no action sequences in TT. I think if Faramir remained accurate, Gollum's treachery was sped up, and the Shelob fight included as a climax, it would have been more than action-packed enough while also remaining accurate to the source material.

Heaven knows I'm not a fan of the Faramir tangent, but really, I think saving Shelob for RoTK was a better choice. Shelob occurs just before, or during the battle of Pelennor Fields IIRC. With that in mind, getting her into TTT means you'd basically have three options:
1) Show the whole build-up to Pelennor Fields. Thematically this is a very bad fit since the audience just got done with a big battle, outlining everything for the next would be overkill. Gandalf's little speech let the viewer know there was going to be another battle, but didn't require the whole background.
2) Simply have a massive chunk of the film be Frodo and Sam. This has the problem that the viewer will lose track of what's happening when with relation to the other characters.
3) Bork up the timeline massively. Also obviously not good.

(How does one quote another poster, by the way? I'm new here.)

The large brown 'quote' button at the bottom of each post does the trick. It also automatically inserts a reference to the quoted post, so you can click by the little green button to be taken to the original.
Alternatively, if you are replying to individual bits of a post one at a time like I am here, you can just highlight the text and hit the little speech button at the top center-right of the text editor.

edit: Also welcome to the Playground, and congrats on your first post disagreeing with me. Rest assured that if you post much, there will be plenty more like it.:smallbiggrin:

[Dienekes]

And the stuff they did to the battle of helms deep was even worse than that stuff. There are no elves at the battle of helmes deep in the book, Eomer is there the whole time, as are most of the rohirrim, although at the end Gandalf brings about 1000 more cavalry. The whole elf thing just boggles my mind, I mean it was cool in the movie but it was so extremely far off from what actually happened.

PJ loves elves, just look at everything Legolas does in the movie that are in no way at all related to the character that Tolkien himself describes as the least of the fellowship. That was why they were added, thematically they served no real purpose, except maybe to be a little heartwarming and to make the elves look even better when compared to men, again.

[Green Bean]

That was why they were added, thematically they served no real purpose, except maybe to be a little heartwarming and to make the elves look even better when compared to men, again.

As opposed to the original book, where the elves were clearly unimportant wusses?

[Dienekes]

As opposed to the original book, where the elves were clearly unimportant wusses?

Nope, they're very important. Just not in the battle of Helm's Deep, in which case they served no real purpose in the battle in the movie and weren't even there in the book, thus making it a completely pointless tack on unless your goal was "gotta have more elves."

[Reverent-One]

Nope, they're very important. Just not in the battle of Helm's Deep, in which case they served no real purpose in the battle in the movie and weren't even there in the book, thus making it a completely pointless tack on unless your goal was "gotta have more elves."

I'll repeat, and to show that the elves aren't just all running away across the sea and are fighting in this war as well.

[Dacia Brabant]

I'll repeat, and to show that the elves aren't just all running away across the sea and are fighting in this war as well.

Couldn't that have been accomplished by showing the attacks on Lothlorien that were going on at the same time as the battle of the Pelennor Fields? That combined with seeing Galadriel destroy Sauron's northern fortress of Dol Guldur, and cutting out the obnoxious "Arwen is leaving/dying, Elrond is a jerk" scenes, might have improved their overall image.

I hope we're not spoiling things too much for the OP.

[Reverent-One]

Couldn't that have been accomplished by showing the attacks on Lothlorien that were going on at the same time as the battle of the Pelennor Fields? That combined with seeing Galadriel destroy Sauron's northern fortress of Dol Guldur, and cutting out the obnoxious "Arwen is leaving/dying, Elrond is a jerk" scenes, might have improved their overall image.

Those aren't bad ideas, but how much more time to already long movies would all this add?

[Dienekes]

I'll repeat, and to show that the elves aren't just all running away across the sea and are fighting in this war as well.

Fair enough, then where were the dwarves? They fought as well and suffered greater losses if memory serves.

[Dacia Brabant]

Granted you'd have to cut out a lot of the dross in RotK and probably shorten the Pelennor Field scenes in order to show the fighting that was going on in places like Lothlorien and Mirkwood, but I think that would only improve it. And there was a lot of dross: all the Arwen junk, Denethor stuffing his face, Frodo telling Sam to GTFO, Legolas soloing the oliphant, and of course the jumping on the bed silliness. :smallyuk:

[warty goblin]

Granted you'd have to cut out a lot of the dross in RotK and probably shorten the Pelennor Field scenes in order to show the fighting that was going on in places like Lothlorien and Mirkwood, but I think that would only improve it. And there was a lot of dross: all the Arwen junk, Denethor stuffing his face, Frodo telling Sam to GTFO, Legolas soloing the oliphant, and of course the jumping on the bed silliness. :smallyuk:

Heaven forbid we have a movie where characters do anything but engage in acts of violence.

[Dienekes]

Granted you'd have to cut out a lot of the dross in RotK and probably shorten the Pelennor Field scenes in order to show the fighting that was going on in places like Lothlorien and Mirkwood, but I think that would only improve it. And there was a lot of dross: all the Arwen junk, Denethor stuffing his face, Frodo telling Sam to GTFO, Legolas soloing the oliphant, and of course the jumping on the bed silliness. :smallyuk:

I'd actually keep Arwen, Denethor, and Frodo emoness it adds to the storyline and character development. However oliphaunt can go, and bed silliness can be replaced with something less silly.

But then, mind you, I like really long movies.

Edit: On second thought, you could probably replace most of the director's cut scenes with this stuff. It's been awhile but I remember the RotK's additional scenes being rather underwhelming.

[Dacia Brabant]

Heaven forbid we have a movie where characters do anything but engage in acts of violence.

We're talking about what would make the elves appear more heroic, so take it in that context. Also, mind explaining to me where any of those scenes that I cited appear in the books?

And I'd have loved it if PJ had streamlined the fight scenes in order to include more of the poetry and song, more of the food, drink and pipeweed, and more of the diplomacy and arguments that are present in the books. Better that than hobbits jumping on beds.

[SmartAlec]

On Shelob: PJ basically stuck to the timeline of the book. Frodo and Sam's story is told quite a way ahead of the rest of the Fellowship's, and the book's perception of time is wrong.

On Helm's Deep: Originally, Arwen was going to be at Helm's Deep in the movie, but then she was dropped. However, that still left a lot of Elves at Helm's Deep. The stuff with Haldir and such is just PJ trying to use as much of his existing footage as possible, rather than reshoot the whole of the Helm's Deep sequence.

[_Zoot_]

And the stuff they did to the battle of helms deep was even worse than that stuff. There are no elves at the battle of helmes deep in the book, Eomer is there the whole time, as are most of the rohirrim, although at the end Gandalf brings about 1000 more cavalry. The whole elf thing just boggles my mind, I mean it was cool in the movie but it was so extremely far off from what actually happened.

Actually it's infantry that Erkenbrand brings, not more cavalry.

[Prime32]

It's not like the Arwen stuff was invented or anything. It's just that her story was in an appendix of Return of the King.

[GenPol]

Books. You could go without seeing the movies, but everybody has to read the books. Oh, and start with the Hobbit, you'll be glad you did.

Although the Lord of the Rings movies are one of the few movie series that actually stayed true (at least for the most part) to the books.

[pendell]

It's not like the Arwen stuff was invented or anything. It's just that her story was in an appendix of Return of the King.

Quite a bit of it was, actually. Yes, her story existed. But they took away parts from other bit characters (such as Glorfindel) to make her more interesting and give her a moment to be badass at the ford.

A bit of heresy: I actually think that PJ's treatment of Arwen *improved* ever so slightly on the Professor's work, giving life and interest to a relationship where, in the books, Arwen is more a cardboard cutout.

As to the elves at helm's deep: Although they weren't at helm's deep in the books, the appendices of Return of the King shows that the War of the Ring was a multi-theater war like WWII, and the Gondorian Front was one of only many campaigns taking place. There were at least two others (Southern Mirkwood: Galadriel and the elves of Lorien, and Erebor/Lonely Mountain: Legolas' Mirkwood elves + dwarves of the mountain + men of Dale under king Brand son of Bard from the Hobbit vs. evil humans and orcs). PJ had no way to fit the larger war into the movie (which is already 12 hours if you have the extended DVDs), so he shoehorned the elves into Helm's Deep to give a bit of a feel for that global, worldwide struggle. I understand he also wanted to give Arwen a role there, but the actress for some reason wasn't able to do the action scenes.

As to the original question: I would recommend *trying* to make it through the books first. It took me several times as a grade schooler before the movies came out. Grit your teeth through chapter 1, which IMO is light-hearted, silly, and doesn't really do anything besides set the stage. Chapter 2, "Shadow of the Past" is when the exposition and the plot hook kicks into high gear. I am then able to sustain interest to the end of Fellowship of the Ring.

Then in the second two books Tolkien commits the cardinal sin of splitting the party. If it gets too confusing, note that each of the remaining books is divided into two books each (books 3,4 in two towers, books 5,6 and Return of the king). If you must, skip books 3 and 5, and read 4 and 6 to follow the adventures of frodo and sam as the 'main plot', then return to read 3 and 5 to see what all the other characters were doing in the war.

If you still can't make it, bail and watch the movies. The movies are good. They cut out a fair amount of stuff, but they're true to the spirit of the work and even improve on it, very slightly, in some areas while completely missing in others.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JonestheSpy]

Man am I glad Arwen didn't get shoehorned in to Helm's Deep. I din't mind e elves appearing, for reasons Brian P and others have explained, and I think Jackson did a good job keeping the feel of the battle right even though he changed lost of details. But in Rohan we have the whole Aragorn/Eowyn thing happening - to have Arwen right there would have been ridiculous.

In general, I thought the changes Jackson made in Fellowship worked really well, were hit-and-miss in Two Towers (Rohan was well done, but he blew it with the Ents), and he totally screwed up ROTK.

[Horrorshow]

I'm well aware that the Elves had their own battles going on during the War of the Ring. I doubt that their appearance at Helm's Deep was intended to showcase this, however. It's simply unnecessary. The War of the Ring, while it did include Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits, was really about the dawn of the age of men - the Fourth Age. I don't mind the streamlining of an adaptation, but the Elves being in Rohan wasn't so much an aerodynamic chassis design as an awkward spoiler fin stuck on with duct tape.

As for Shelob, I'll retract what I posited earlier. She does fit well into the third movie. My real complaint was the raping of Faramir. Wikipedia asserts that Jackson did it to "give Sam and Frodo something to do other than walk around," which is one of the alleged weak points of the series. I think, however, that a thoughtful, wise, and accurate depiction of Faramir who is able to ignore the Ring's temptation completely (yes, including a few guerrilla warfare fight scenes if necessary) would have simply been better than Boromir 2.0.

And to the OP...don't read this.

[derfos]

I think which medium you like depends on what you are looking for in LOTR. The truth is that the movie tells the same story as the books (with a few MINOR changes), but misses out on the most important parts of the books: The campaign setting. Tolkien does a great job of describing every little bit of the world as he imagines it to the point that you could build random characters and play a roleplaying game on this setting (which has, of course, been done). The description of the battle at Helm's Deep is a chapter long. The description of the beauty of Lothlorien is about the same length. The point is this: Tolkien did not just focus on plot - he wanted the entire world experience to be in his books.

So here is my way of seeing it: If you want an epic adventure story, go watch the movie - you'll get less bored with the details and you will see all the battle you need to see. If you want to delve into a world of fantasy and be fascinated by every detail (including the mundane ones), then the book is your best call.

If you got bored by the Hobbit, the Lord of the Rings is not for you. I read the Hobbit when I was 10, and it took me about 2 weeks to get through it. Each LOTR book took me about a month (the second one took me more like 2). The Hobbit is a lot more story-based than LOTR, so if you found that book dense, then you will hate the trilogy.

[Athaniar]

I agrew with the general opinion, especially that of the above poster. However, since I read the Silmarillion recently, I will tell you my opinion of it:

It can be dull. Very dull, in fact. But that does not change the fact that it is a great epic and very much worth reading. It is the mythology of the world, with the creation of the universe, the fall from grace, the dawn of the mortal (and not so mortal) races, the machinations of the primeval evil, and also Atlantis (yes, literally). Plus, it has Ungoliant. *shiver*