Lord Of The Rings Books!

United States
May 25, 2008 12:31am CST
just wondering how many of you out there read the books before seeing the movie and if so How did you feel about the books compared to the movie I myself say the books where 100% better then the Movies were How about you all?
1 person likes this
14 responses
7 Jun 08
I admire Peter Jackson for his efforts, but as with any book-movie conversion, there is always something left out. LOTR is no exception, and I felt the books much better than the movies
1 person likes this
@gamgee (116)
• Philippines
7 Jun 08
The Books are way way better than the movie, I've read it 4-5 times already and I still consider it a great read. With the book, one could relate with all the characters' grief, happiness, sense of despair, etc. With the movie, I can only relate with Legolas, he really was the scene stealer, with that hair. I like the book mostly because, in the movie, my favorite, Sam Gamgee, wasnt given the proper exposure, that should be afforded him as one of the ring bearers. But overall I still think that the trilogy was done masterfully.
1 person likes this
• United States
7 Jun 08
I read "The Hobbit" and the Lord of the Rings trilogy 30 years ago. I loved the books!. Tolkien was a master story teller and has written the quintessential "good vs evil" epic. I have seen all three movies and they are great, but, as always, the books are way better! Making all three movies at the same time was brilliant! The movies stayed true to the books pretty much. Of course, some parts of the novels were left out, and the ending of the third movie was changed a little (literary liscence). The movies captured the essence of Toklien's epic story.
@Myrrdin (3601)
• Canada
5 Jun 08
I have read the books more times then I care to count, it is pretty much a yearly tradition for me. The movies were amazing, but as others point out no matter how spectacular a movie is it cannot compare to a good book. The movies had to leave so much out and so much just could not be conveyed onscreen that the two are completely different.
1 person likes this
• India
25 May 08
In every usual case where a movie is made out of a book, the book version of the story is much better. The books were as always much better than the movies. The author Tolkien did a very fine job explaining each and every part of the world. It was mind blowing. bourne
@babyanj (131)
• Philippines
25 May 08
I know what you mean. Nothing beats the original in most (or is it all) cases. I read the book way before the movie was made. But it was alright because it was a good adaptation.
• India
25 May 08
But I also have to say that the movie was also done in a great way; The actors who did the roles were very great and their acting was awesome along with the music given , direction and graphics extended to the movie. bourne
• United States
1 Jul 08
No movie can ever compare to the books, in the case of Lord of the Rings. The movies were awesome, but so much was left out in not in order for true book geeks. I am just grateful the movies were made and the storie came to another generation. I am 48 and I remember reading them in junior high, so that is a long time (even in middle earth)
• United States
30 Jun 08
I was without a doubt addicted to the books before the movies came out. I agree with the others here that the books were better than the movies. Isn't that what usually happens? However, the movies were still excellent. This was the best book to movie project that I've ever seen. Peter Jackson did a beautiful job of portraying Tolkien's world on screen. And now whenever I reread the books I always picture the characters as how they looked in the movies. But I'm not complaining.
• United States
13 Jun 08
I did the exact opposite I had my husband buy me the books after we watched the movies! I was amazed at the amount of details in the books that just weren't show in the movies!
@CanadaGal (4304)
• Canada
5 Jun 08
I have this "thing" where if there's a movie taken from a book, I want to read the book before seeing the movie (or movies as the case is with the LOTR). I have read the LOTR trilogy, but have only seen the first movie (so far... although I have all 3). I found the movie to be very slow, but from what I recalled from reading the book, it seemed to be fairly accurate, and I think a good job was done. But I do agree, that the books seem to be better than the movies in most cases (although I have yet to find a movie better than a book... but I'm trying to be open-minded thinking that it MIGHT be possible lol). My main reason for reading the book first, is because I want to picture the characters and scenery for myself, and not have imprinted in my mind what some director saw and put on the screen. It becomes somewhat of a game to me too... to see if what I pictured is similar to what is shown in the movie.
• United States
26 May 08
I totally read all three of the LOTR books before the movies came out...and I must say, any kind of epic book like that is BOUND to be better than the movie. I mean you get so much more detail from the books. But the special effects were cool too in the movie. I like both, but would pick the books overall.
@Nnodim (2)
• Nigeria
25 May 08
its the best movie so far
@Hiryuu (41)
• Brazil
25 May 08
Of course the books are better, because in they we have all the history with all secondary events and all, and, to put this in the movies, each one will have about 6 hours, so, much improbable.
• Philippines
25 May 08
well, i'v watched the movie first before reading the books.. but i just love the books.. it's amazing..! ive learned so much from it.. i only read the trilogy within just one week even though all those times i have an exam and quizes at school.. =)
• Thailand
25 May 08
I read some part of volume 1 before see the movies. I think the movie is more exiting than the book in the first part. But I read all parts of the books volume 2 and 3 before see the episode 2 and 3. I think both of them are great. The movie fulfill some imagine to me and the book has great more detail than the movie.