Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Have you (re)read the book in connection with the movies coming out?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 12:13pm

Post #26 of 52 (205 views)
Shortcut
I can enjoy both Thorins [In reply to] Can't Post

I will avoid misbehaving here (cough) but I find that the text leaves me enough room to picture out film Thorin with the text. And having had the sheer joy of hearing the songs I now linger over them more than I used to.

I read it through Dec 10th, and as other post snippets for reference. But I have always read it in bits and pieces, its been bedside reading for me for many years, I just open up and jump in. The end has now become much, much harder to read, and I have been avoiding it.

Personally I liked the Stont Giants, because even though its a tiny passing phrase I always pictured Giants lurking, and I enjoy the visuals (although I must note that the noggin that gets knocked off REALLY look slike Optimus Prime's head.)

Freeman is my Bilbo now and forever.


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 8 2013, 12:51pm

Post #27 of 52 (193 views)
Shortcut
... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Personally the thought of the director [..] being congratulated for 'finshing Tolkien's job' on the hobbit rewrite is one I can't accept.

I would not do that either, although I guess I have less issues with PJ's changes in general (loved the Elves in HD for example). What I meant in my original post is that TH as a book is not really dear to me, compared to almost everything else Tolkien wrote. That is why I questioned myself while reading the book whether this is even a story I should be that excited about to see on screen. Which does make sense, I guess, when one is not that thrilled with the source material to begin with. This is why I am more thankful for what we got and certainly much more tolerant when it comes to changes, as I did not look forward to the Hobbit as an adaption of the book, but as a return to Middle-earth. And since there are no changes that significantly intercrossed with my "ME feeling", I was pleased. But I am very aware of the fact how problematic many things in AUJ were to those who have much more "heart" invested in the book.


(This post was edited by Arannir on Mar 8 2013, 12:54pm)


malickfan
Gondor

Mar 8 2013, 12:59pm

Post #28 of 52 (182 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough [In reply to] Can't Post

We'll agree to disagree. On relection I guess I can't really talk...I read LOTR after seeing the films-and some of the stuff missed out or changed which is often moaned about was an improvement in my eyes (for a nine hour film at least)-Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil Scouring of the Shire. I always felt the hobbit would worked better as TV series anyway.

‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’

Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth



imin
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 1:13pm

Post #29 of 52 (180 views)
Shortcut
I wonder for how many people that happens with? [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you prefer the films images to the ones you created? Or is it a case of the film images are so strong?

Also The Silmarillion takes no time :P


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 1:57pm

Post #30 of 52 (168 views)
Shortcut
That's a good question [In reply to] Can't Post

I know for your your internal images are very strong.
I have integrated the visual images quite easily into the text; it took longer with LOTR than TH. Perhaps because TH not as detailed to start with?

Where do you stand with LOTR images today? Is it a question of time and exposure, or do you still have your "book" images in your mind, and will TH go the same way?


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 8 2013, 2:05pm)


imin
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 2:30pm

Post #31 of 52 (165 views)
Shortcut
Lord of the rings images today [In reply to] Can't Post

I see basically what i have imagined - this is different somewhat than how it was when i first read it - some is more defined other parts are just different in some way.

It's weird when i think of say Aragorn i see Viggo's face but if i think of Aragorn doing something then i see the character that came about from reading it, so it depends what context it's in i guess.

I can remember when FOTR came out and as i had only read the book twice at that point and it was all very new the mental landscape of places and characters were not as well formed as they are now and i think the visual image just swept them all away. This was something i didn't really want as i liked the fact that so many people could read these books but each have their own version rather than one overriding version coming from the film. When i re-read it after FOTR i tried at first to almost fight the films images but i found that the more i did the more they stuck - i have a stubborn brain, haha. In the end i just gave up trying to fight it - once i did that - all the film imagery just vanished, was strange!

I do incorporate some things from the films - some landscapes, mountains etc but i don't for specific buildings or people as i prefer to have my own for them - not because i think they are better or the right version, more just because its my own version. I think this is the reason why i don't want anyone to make a Silmarillion movie(s) as i don't think film could match what we can imagine.

For TH i don't think anything will really change - mostly because i have been reading TH for so long (in relation to my life) and a long time before the release of the film. Some places - like Beorn's house from the little clips in the vlog and posted photos looks great to me and very close to how i imagined so it wouldn't jar with what i see, other things i feel the imagery from the book is better. Essentially the gap between first reading the book and first watch of the film has been too long for it to change how i view the world - which i personally prefer (my dwarves certainly look better for example, haha!) Tongue


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 2:43pm

Post #32 of 52 (160 views)
Shortcut
Compartmentalizing [In reply to] Can't Post

You have a strong internal image machine, my friend! And willpower to keep it on.
I have to say I guess in my mind when I read the texts I do allow the beautiful film images in...faces too...accompanied by the original prose. So it's best of both worlds for me.

Don't get us started on whose Dwarves look better........! (Joking, folks, just joking. Sabers down pleaseWink)



Anyone else? Have you incorporated the images when you read or are your own pre-film images the ones you see?


(This post was edited by Brethil on Mar 8 2013, 2:47pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 2:45pm

Post #33 of 52 (153 views)
Shortcut
I mix them now [In reply to] Can't Post

For me when I read at this point I do a bit of mixing of what things look like. For me it gives me the best of everything going on in my little mind as I make my trek through this amazing story. Cool



imin
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 2:53pm

Post #34 of 52 (152 views)
Shortcut
Lol [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Don't get us started on whose Dwarves look better........! (Joking, folks, just joking. Sabers down pleaseWink)


http://www.voxlumiere.com/...cking-out-tongue.jpg


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 8 2013, 3:10pm

Post #35 of 52 (148 views)
Shortcut
This is pretty much the same for me too [In reply to] Can't Post

And I can turn "on and off" the characters from the films when I read the books - mainly because more often than not, the films don't follow the book.

For instance, if I want to, I can imagine Elijah, Dom, Sean and Billy arriving at Bree, but it's much harder to imagine those 4 film characters in Tom Bombadil's house.

And I agree with the landscapes too - before, I just had a generic volcano shape in my head for Mount Doom. Now it feels more real by using the image from the films.


imin
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 3:16pm

Post #36 of 52 (146 views)
Shortcut
Yeah turning them on and off is a good way of describing it [In reply to] Can't Post

You just summed up what i meant in one sentence than i did it a block of text, haha! d'oh!


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 8 2013, 3:33pm

Post #37 of 52 (140 views)
Shortcut
ROFL......!!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

I like the little Bilbo-style fist.............Heart


Kimtc
Rohan


Mar 8 2013, 3:36pm

Post #38 of 52 (138 views)
Shortcut
Interesting question... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's a case of the film images being so strong. In the case of The Hobbit, for me much of the book left it to the imagination, so with the dwarves I tended to see a lot of long, white beards--that is, until Gimli came along, and then they started to all look like Gimli. Beorn looked to me like what PJ came up with for the Easterlings in LOTR--really rough. And I actually envisioned Laketown sort of like a Middle-earth version of Hong Kong, at least around the harbor area--lots of boats, floating houses, etc. I never really had a vision or Erebor, just saw Smaug in a big cavern with lots of gold and jewels, but no obvious signs of a dwarf city (a la Moria). In LOTR, I was completely different in my vision of what Frodo and Sam were doing while they tromped around in Mordor. I mean, miles off of what the film did.

For my purposes, the film images are so good in both this movie and LOTR, that I don't mind them supplanting my own, though. It probably makes it easier to read, too, since I already have a visual map.

As for the Silmarillion, I probably need Stephen Colbert sitting with me while I read it, as my spirit guide.Smile


In Reply To
Do you prefer the films images to the ones you created? Or is it a case of the film images are so strong?

Also The Silmarillion takes no time :P



elaen32
Gondor

Mar 8 2013, 3:48pm

Post #39 of 52 (131 views)
Shortcut
A mixture too... [In reply to] Can't Post

like the others just said, I can see either the film characters and places or my own mental images and can switch them on and off to a greater extent. It's interesting what one of you(?Daniel) say about the hobbits in LOTR- I'm the same- I can't picture the film hobbits in Tom Bombadil's house either, or in the Barrow Downs. Is it just because we have not seen them in the film in that situation, or something else? I cannot really picture Karl Urban's Eomer at Helm's Deep either, but can easily picture book Eomer there. Is it because the film version just looks as though he should be on a horse and seeing him on castle ramparts would seem odd? I'm not sure.

"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"


imin
Valinor


Mar 8 2013, 4:16pm

Post #40 of 52 (126 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for your answer [In reply to] Can't Post

I find the differences in how we create the world from the words written to be really interesting.

I take it you watched the clip of Colbert smoking James Franco like a ham (again) over on main? Was hilarious and i wonder how many people could do better under the pressure of being on a live studio?

If you have tried to read the silmarillion in the past but would like to try again - i would recommend having your book and laptop open at the same time - with the tolkien gateway open as one tab (or various other tolkien wiki like sites), maps of the relevant places - the atlas of middle earth is good for that (can bring up the maps online) and perhaps listen to the audiobook which has been added onto youtube. That way you can stop and read around anything of interest and it won't just be a massive jumble of names which don't mean anything - this is how i found it when i first tried to read it and was like 'where are the hobbits!' Obviously if you are not interested then just ignore what i said, lol. Tongue


(This post was edited by imin on Mar 8 2013, 4:17pm)


Rostron2
Gondor


Mar 8 2013, 4:20pm

Post #41 of 52 (135 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I did. [In reply to] Can't Post

I read them every year around the holidays. More so now since the movies are kind of ones to watch when I have time off around that time of year.

I don't see how adapting the book the way they did is anything different from the dozens of 'based on a true story' sorts of films we see every year. Things are always embellished, characters and lines moved around and changed, it's part of the creative process.


Kimtc
Rohan


Mar 8 2013, 5:22pm

Post #42 of 52 (113 views)
Shortcut
Thanks! This is a great idea. [In reply to] Can't Post

It makes me think that a tablet version of it would be wonderful, where you could interactively click on things and get maps, biographies, definitions, etc. (beyond what the Kindle does). I've seen this done with some other books, and it is really helpful in non-fiction (and I like to think of Tokien as non-fiction Wink).

Yes, I did see him with Franco--why James keeps coming back for more abuse, I'll never know. The best part was the sheer excitment on Colbert's face as he went through all the potential Valar answers. I thought he was going to pop!


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 8 2013, 6:55pm

Post #43 of 52 (110 views)
Shortcut
For me, it is different [In reply to] Can't Post

I see the books and films as two separate but connected things, and both have their good and bad points. I don't need to identify the characters in the films with the ones in the books, and can enjoy either version of the story in isolation.

Certainly, many of the characters in the LOTR films were completely dissimilar to what I had imagined them to be like. In the books, King Theoden was totally different – older, with a long, grey beard – and there was all that business between him and Gandalf over Shadowfax, which I actually liked. Aragorn of the books was just an indistinct stereotypical hero type, and the film contained a huge improvement on the character, though Strider was better than 'the king'. Merry and Pippin: well, in the books they were Hobbits, not the rather silly young humans we got in the film (I disliked the acting and characterisation in these cases). Eowyn was not beautiful enough, and I thought Otto's acting was weak. Denethor was all wrong (perhaps not because of the actor's abilities). And so on...

Over time, I grew to accept the film characters I did not like much because there was a lot I did like about the films.

In general, I prefer the characters in the Hobbit film to those in the LOTR films – and certainly to those in the Hobbit book, in which the characters, apart from Bilbo and Gandalf, are like cardboard cutouts. Martin Freeman is the perfect Bilbo; Thorin is suitably dark/conflicted, and much more interesting and clearly defined than the Thorin of the book; Gandalf is his usual marvellous self. I also like the characterisation of the other Dwarves, especially Balin and Dwalin, and the Irish one. The Hobbit book story is a charming read for small children, while the film is deeper and more intense.

I hope this make sense – it is rather rushed.


(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 8 2013, 7:00pm)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Mar 8 2013, 11:36pm

Post #44 of 52 (85 views)
Shortcut
When I see a movie [In reply to] Can't Post

When I see a movie I wipe the slate clean in my mind as much as possible. If a movie is going to be a slave to the book, then just hire an actor to sit on screen and read it. No need for interpretation. I can have both: books and film, and not be bothered that each is different in it's own right. I guess that's just me. I see it as art and I like to see a director's interpretation of the material.

Thorin in the book is not Thorin in the movie. Nor should he be. I am fine with both. I fully understand those that can't hang with that. That's cool. I guess it's "to each, his own" or so they say. But if I'm going to spend my money I'm going to enjoy myself and not sit and and do coulda woulda shoulda. Life is too short for that.

Oh. And Martin Freeman is right. Filmmaking is not a democracy. The director or actor doesn't ask Russel in Oregon (LOL you go Martin) about how things should be done. Good for him for saying so too.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 9 2013, 12:09am

Post #45 of 52 (79 views)
Shortcut
You and I think alike, Ham-Sammy [In reply to] Can't Post

Another thing I forgot to mention was that in the LOTR films, at first sight the Elves looked all wrong to me. They were too heavy and human to look like Elves, who I imagined to be more like Thandruil (so far) in the Hobbit – more ethereal and otherworldly. (Thandruil actually looks like the Glorfindel of my imagination.) Even Galadriel didn't seem right in the LOTR films – and I disliked her 'green' look in one scene. Funnily enough, I think that in the Hobbit Galadriel looks much better – more beautiful and more Elven.

As I said, I soon got used to the things I didn't like about the LOTR films and just ignored them and focused on the things I did like – which were many. For me, the books are one thing, the films another.


Lio
Lorien


Mar 9 2013, 1:07am

Post #46 of 52 (77 views)
Shortcut
Maybe I'm just weird, but... [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't really "picture" things in my head while reading Tolkien's books, at least not vividly. For me the experience is more about the words themselves and the impressions they invoke. (Boy, did that sound weird or what?)

But overall I do mostly keep the movie and book versions of the story separate in my head.

Specifically in terms of LotR this is probably a bit strange, since I saw the movies first so I'd expect them to colour my book experience a bit more. (Did I mention I'm weird?) But maybe it's because the LotR books are so deep and detailed that the movies seem a bit watered-down by comparison at times. (I don't mean this as a slam against the LotR movies by the way, there's just too much to fit into three films! Well, except maybe for the weird changes like Faramir trying to take the Ring business. Crazy)

Oh well. Books and movies provide a different experience after all!

Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 9 2013, 2:35am

Post #47 of 52 (68 views)
Shortcut
That's an interesting experience [In reply to] Can't Post

So the language itself is paramount to you, rather than the images? I wonder if its a learning style thing - language does affect how you remember images. Plus like Imin your internal image maker seems stronger than the externally viewed ones....hmmmm. Maybe you guys are weird (haha! TOTALLY joking). You must have a really deep enjoyment of reading the books, especially LOTR because of the level of detail and the way it flows. Just curious, are you multilingual?

I have been able to integrate, like I said, but every time I read LOTR I am so awed by the beauty of the prose - like when Frodo is starting to feel restless in Shire, and when they are in Moria. Now I get charactar faces...so life as a Tolkien lover is oh so good!Smile


Lio
Lorien


Mar 9 2013, 11:03pm

Post #48 of 52 (44 views)
Shortcut
Part of it might be due to Tolkien's writing style as well [In reply to] Can't Post

For the most part he doesn't tend to describe the appearance of things at great length, I don't think. Smile

Something I forgot to mention in the previous post is that when I first started reading the books, I did have the movie images in my mind. But as I got further in they kind of got displaced, not because the book descriptions conflict with the movie images, but because the overall "feel" of each work is different in terms of tone, themes, and the like. I hope that made sense, it's really hard to explain. I guess what I mean is that the movie and book each seem to tell their own story, even in those parts where the movie sticks closely to the book. (It still doesn't make sense, does it?)

And yes I am bilingual, I wonder if that somehow affects things? Actually my first reading of LotR was in Polish, and later I read the English version. Laugh

Hmm, writing this post reminds me that I really need to reread LotR. Sometimes I find myself just flipping through it to look something up and then randomly read a few pages when something catches my eye. But it's been a few years since I've read the books all the way through!

Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 9 2013, 11:35pm

Post #49 of 52 (44 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien is far more descriptive about places than people. [In reply to] Can't Post

So I think the reader has to do more work to fill in a face of a character than to picture a landscape. It makes PJ's casting even more impressive, really, because there have been shockingly few missteps, and I don't think there is any bit of casting that is universally disliked, though there are some that are close to being universally approved.

My experience sounds similar to yours. When I first read the books, I formed a vague sense of faces, but a strong sense of personality for most of the characters. Most of the movie casting matched the personalities well enough for me to very pleased, so I think that my mental movie is now an interesting hybrid. But when I read the book, I find my own pre-movie characters edging out the movie characters as soon as the book gets into sections that were left out of the movie or changed significantly and thereafter, but the movie versions jump back in when scenes arise that the movies captured especially well. So my own versions are alive and well, and more or less amicably sharing space in my head with PJ's.

Silverlode






Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 12:09am

Post #50 of 52 (37 views)
Shortcut
I had a feeling you might be good with language [In reply to] Can't Post

Plus as Silverlode writes as well as you point out stylistically Tolkien leaves you room to project your images. Interesting that you did film before books and yet the book images supercede - that's why I thought you might be a very "lingual" person, with the words overriding the visual. My experience has been different, almost opposite to yours: I read books many times WAY before the films, but film images have migrated seamlessly right into the work for me, even in places the film has not touched upon. I'm a very visual person though, so maybe that's why.

So I think it does make sense! Smile

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.