Am I the only person here who hasn't read LOTR?

[Adagio]

A year ago, I didn't know about it. Half a year ago, we saw the cartoon version of it in class... I'm the type of guy who loves cartoons, but hates when the story is boring...and the story in lotr was not only boring, it was boooooo riiiiiiing...And after we saw this, I heard, the strongest argument to read the books, was because of the story

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
I tried to read them once, but I got so bored that I went to watch The Simpsons on TV instead.

Here! Here!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hell, it could be worse. You could live in New Zealand, where, as soon as the movie started filming here, everyone seemed to rush out and buy the books and get an extra part in the movies!

There's not as much hyperbole as you might expect in that. I have difficulty naming my friends who WEREN'T in the movie, and I only know one or two diehard film students who, like me, refuse to read the damned thing.

[David Floyd]

The LOTR books are some of the greatest books ever written.

Far better than that classical Shakespeare or Odyssey ****, that's for sure.

[Thrawn05]

Was never crazy for the hobbit... so I didn't bother with LOTR.

I'm picky with novels. The only novels I liked were the three Timothy Zahn SW novels (how you guess?) and AL|ENS: Labyrinth.


Other then that, I like reading WWII books. One I recommend is called "The Invasion of Japan". The book is about how the US were to invade Japan if the nukes didn't do the job.

[SpencerH]

I dont know how many times I've read TLOTR, 20 maybe. I've probably read the Silmarillion 3 times (but not in the last 20 years). I just saw the movie. I wasnt dissapointed, but I wasnt thrilled either. Too many unnecessary changes and I dont like the portrayal of Frodo as a bit of a wimp. Curiously, I was worried they would turn him into too much of a classic hero.

[hexagonian]

Funny thing - I read the book many times when I was younger. It was probably one of my favorite books too, and a lot of my reading choices were determined because of LOTR.

I reread it a couple of years ago. Maybe because of familiarity, but the characterization seemed too 2-dimensional and forced. (Especially the whole Gimli infatuation with Galandriel - and Bombadil ... ughhhh) The main story still held me though, and it is an incredible story. And Tolkien does one one thing better than just about any other fantasy author, and that is he is a master of creating a strong historical context for his world. (That's why out of all his books, the Silmarillion is my favorite one)

When the movie came out and had eliminated Bombadil and seemed to do a more relistic job of character development, I felt I might never go back to reading the books again...just pop in the DVD.

(As a sidenote, when they made one of my other favorite books 'Dune' into a movie back in '84, I had the exact opposite reaction - the movie was so bad that the book looked even better - though SciFi channel's recent adaptation was very good)

[SpencerH]

What was lost in the movie from shortening the flight from the Shire and the encounter with Bambadil was the development of Frodo's character.

The sci-fi's dune was much better than the pitiful first movie.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Mr. President
The film doesn't do justice to the book. There are so many things that they had to leave out.

You mean like Tom Bombadil, the most extraneous character in all of modern fiction?

[Kepler]

The first hundred pages suck?
The latter two books are better than "Fellowship"?

You guys are on pipe-weed. The first book is far better written -- the latter two are good, but they're pure escapist adventure with a little bit of the Spinal Tap druid set thrown in for color.

Tolkein is one of those things that's a great, mind-blowing experience if you read it when you're about 14 or 15. Like Cyberpunk or Ayn Rand or the Foundation Trilogy (we'll bury Isaac decently and pretend the sequel and prequel abortions never happened). By the time you hit 18 or 19 you're too mature to ignore the triteness and one-dimensionality, but in junior high school there's nothing better. And they make you feel superior to your peers as well, which is always good for a middle-schooler. ;-)

[dunk]

Originally posted by Mr. President
The film doesn't do justice to the book. There are so many things that they had to leave out.

Very true. The fellowship forms a very tight bond in the first book. That was lost. In the movie, you can tell that everyone likes each other, but you get no sense of how good of friends Gimli and Legolas become and how important it actually is. You get no sense of how good a guy Boromir actually is as well.

[JCG]

Read LOTR all the way through early this year, not really because of the 1st movie, and while I certainly found certain parts slow as heck, many others were more than excellent enough. It's a very good book taken as a whole...

Began the Silmarillion soon after that, interesting but too inconsistent in its quality, so I haven't read it since.

[Murgatroyd]

If they'd left out about half of the orc-chopping, the movie would have been much better, and they would have had time for more character development.

[SpencerH]

The funny thing is that I thought Liv Tyler was going to play Legolas. I still think that would have been more interesting than her playing Arwen which reqiuired their re-writing the book.

[Arrian]

Haven't read LOTR? Your loss.

-Arrian